What Students Want Out of Noncredit Workforce Programs

For the past few years, there has been a debate over the use of federal student aid for short-term workforce development programs. While the debate involves important issues of educational policy and pedagogy, the voices of the customer are often missing—specifically what students who enroll in these programs expect to gain from participating.

Making Every Rung of the Credential Ladder Count—a new report released by Educational Equity Solutions—is a step toward rectifying that oversight. This study includes interviews with students who completed community college workforce programs at four colleges in three states, primarily within the manufacturing sector. While the number of students interviewed is relatively small, their insights not only shed light on student concerns with these programs but also have implications for public policy.

First, the interviews reveal the agency of the students who choose to enroll in these opportunities, which include a mix of noncredit and credit programs ranging in length from three to nine months. Students calculated that taking time out for a program would pay off. They wanted to get back into the labor force as quickly as possible and pursued programs expecting they would result directly in a high-quality job with living wages, good working conditions, and advancement opportunities. Most students had families, and the trade-off between time and money played a crucial part in their decision-making.

Related to this is students’ assumption that the skills taught by these programs would have immediate value to employers. They selected the programs anticipating that they would obtain employment upon completing them, not down the line. Gaining bite-size knowledge and getting a foot in the door were not a major attraction.

The most important criticism the students made of these community college certificate programs was that, in many cases, the jobs they obtained were no different from those of people who were hired off the street with no training. In other words, they expected that education—even a short-term credential—would secure them a better position than someone without it. But many students were disappointed with the job they got. There was a gap between what their college told them about the program and what they encountered on the job site.

If these student responses reflect a broad view of the market for short-term certificate earners, Education Equity Solutions’ study lends support for two important policy modifications. First, colleges should spend much more effort making sure that their short-term workforce programs have a direct and clear path to high-quality jobs. Employers should be embedded in the development and delivery of these certificate programs, hiring students as they complete the course. This involvement is an essential part of program design; no short-term course should have access to public funds unless that feature is built in. The lack of employer involvement is likely contributing to the decline of adult enrollment in credit and noncredit classes at many colleges. The students’ experiences underscore that these educational offerings need to be tightly linked to subsequent employment to attract more students.

The students’ responses also suggest that the policy debate over the use of federal funds—specifically Pell Grants—for noncredit programs should hinge far more on whether these offerings achieve sustainable wage employment that is better than the employment gained by workers without credentials. A specific value should be attached to the short-term credential, in the form either of better wages or of a clear career pathway for program completers. This value proposition may require more employer skin in the game than previously considered by either colleges or employers. If students cannot obtain meaningful employment as the result of noncredit certificate completion, these certificate programs should not be eligible for federal support.

The disconnect between the job students anticipated and the job and salary they obtained indicates that far more transparency about the outcomes of short-term programs is needed. To increase this transparency, colleges could arrange visits to employers during the program and in-class presentations by people from the occupational sector. Also, employers should articulate to program participants what the pathway for advancement—including wage gains, better working conditions, and ongoing growth in knowledge and responsibility—looks like. Achieving this will require greater collaboration between employers and colleges in program design and implementation.

This study suggests there are critical steps community colleges can take to distinguish their short-term certificate programs from those of their for-profit trade school competitors and to prove their worth to policymakers. Meeting students’ expectations and earning federal support will require more college effort. Education Equity Solutions’ study brings an important perspective into this discussion, and its results should be taken seriously in the development of short-term noncredit workforce programs.