Critical Issues Menu

On March 2-4, 1995, the Advanced Technology Environmental Education Center (ATEEC), the Hazardous Materials Training & Research Institute (HMTRI), the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), the Partnership for Environmental Technology Education (PETE), and the National Science Foundation (NSF) co-sponsored the National Forum on Critical Issues in Environmental Technology Education at Two-Year Colleges, to address issues relevant to producing a quality environmental technology workforce in the United States. This forum was timely because there is broad agreement that if the United States is to maintain a position of economic and political leadership in the world, fundamental changes must occur in the workplace and in the educational programs that support the workplace. A consensus has been built that the key to maintaining or increasing the economic productivity of the country lies in the creation of high performance work organizations which are supported by high performance educational programs.

The purpose of the NSF-funded forum was to identify critical issues in environmental technology programs; to develop recommendations for academia, industry, and government; and to assist these communities in implementing the recommendations. Deliberations during the forum focused on ways to create a national, world-class network of two-year college environmental technology programs supported through public-private partnerships to produce and maintain an environmental technology workforce that addresses the diversified needs of industry and promotes the transition of transfer students to higher education.

The 43 participants from across the country who attended the forum represented business and industry, two-year colleges, four-year colleges and universities, secondary schools, professional societies, and federal agencies with an interest in the education of environmental technicians. The participants were divided into five working groups to examine the following issues:

• Professionalization of environmental technician education as well as preparation, credentials, professional advancement, and continuing education of faculty;
• Curriculum and program development and implementation in environmental technician education;
• Environmental equity and human resources;
• Current and future employment needs; and
• Transferability of credits (2+2+2).

The forum report presents issues and recommendations relevant to the education of environmental technicians. The audience for this report includes: (1) administrators and faculty of academic institutions at all levels, but particularly in two-year colleges; (2) employers of technicians, such as companies and government agencies; (3) leaders of professional societies; and (4) federal, state, and local government officials who have responsibilities for the quality and quantity of the nation's technical workforce.

The recommendations in the final report are also being used to provide direction for ATEEC, which is one of a selected few Centers of Excellence funded by the NSF to improve the quality of advanced technological education in science and engineering technology fields, as well as the basic mathematics and science core underlying such programs. The Center has three primary goals: first, to nationally validate environmental curriculum models and advanced instructional materials; second, to establish comprehensive programs of professional development for educators; and third, to build an electronic clearinghouse to serve as a national center of environmental education information and as a hub for networking environmental educators, business and industry, federal agencies, and professional societies.

BACKGROUND

"Today, it is estimated that as many as 3 million Americans are employed in environmental work, many jobs that were unimaginable even 15 years ago" according to The New Complete Guide to Environmental Careers. In almost every area of environmental service, technicians are part of the workforce (Green, 1994). Technician-level positions are not limited to the environmental field; they are a "large and rapidly growing population_ a new worker elite who are transforming the American labor force and potentially every organization that employs them" (Richman, 1994). Due, in part, to the growing environmental industry and the proliferation of technician positions, many of the "environmental technician" occupations have not been clearly defined.

Along with the rapid growth of the environmental field and technician positions, the world is undergoing a period of technological revolution which many believe will be as widespread in its effects as was the industrial "mass production" revolution of nearly a century ago. The National Center on Education and the Economy, in its report, America's Choice: High Skills or Low Wages, labels these changes "the third industrial revolution," while the Hudson Institute publication, Workforce 2000, Work and Workers for the 21st Century, labels this the "post industrial information era." Whatever the label, there is broad agreement that if the United States is to maintain a position of economic and political leadership in the world, fundamental changes must occur in the workplace and in the educational programs that support the workplace.

In recent years broad political consensus has indicated the need for change. In 1989 President Bush and the nation's governors, in an attempt to provide a framework for action, established the National Education Goals. The link between education and the economy was clearly stated by the chair of the National Education Goals Panel, who wrote, "Education is as important to our global economy in its implications for a competent workforce as availability of capital or any other business condition." President Clinton, on the occasion of the establishment of the President's committee of Advisors on Science and Technology stated, "Science and technology are essential tools for achieving this administration's goals for strengthening the economy, creating high quality jobs, protecting the environment, improving our health care and education systems, and maintaining our national security. This country must sustain world leadership in science, mathematics and engineering if we are to meet the challenges of today . . . and of tomorrow." Representative Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman of the Joint Congressional Economic Committee states, "For an advanced country such as ours, the only sustainable advantage is a talented and adaptive workforce capable of using the latest technologies and reaching ever higher levels of productivity."

A consensus has been built that the key to maintaining or increasing the economic productivity of the country lies in the creation of high performance work organizations which are supported by high performance educational programs. Such organizations are characterized by a willingness to adopt new technology, flexibility in organizational structures, accountability, and the empowerment of employees.

Both Congress and the White House emphasized the technical workforce in their 1992 and 1993 initiatives. Congress passed and the Administration supported the Scientific and Advanced Technology Act of 1992, which called for the National Science Foundation (NSF) to establish a national program to improve the education for technicians in advanced technology fields using the resources of the nation's two-year colleges. Thus, the Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program was established to address this need. As quoted in the NSF publication, The Advanced Technological Education Program: 1994 Awards and Activities (NSF 95-6), Dr. Luther Williams, NSF Assistant Director for Education and Human Resources (EHR), says "It has become increasingly apparent that for the United States to be competitive in the world market, the technical component of the workforce in the United States must be better prepared than the corresponding workforce in other industrialized countries. The Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program is a major new NSF initiative in response to this challenge." The ATE program is managed jointly by the Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) and the Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education (ESIE).

The aforementioned NSF publication also states that the goal of the new ATE program is to promote exemplary improvement in advanced technological education at the national and regional level through support of curriculum development and program improvement for technicians. Central to the ATE program is the development of strategies to strengthen two-year college technician education and to strengthen the mathematics, science, and technology education base in secondary schools. Expanded opportunities for technicians at four-year colleges and universities and for those employed are also included. Collaboration of two-year colleges with secondary schools and four-year institutions, as well as partnerships with business, industry, and government are encouraged/expected. According to Margaret Cozzens, Division Director for ESIE, "Mounting a major national effort to improve the education of technicians requires that all groups involved in technician education become proactive. With support from the National Science Foundation and others who share the vision, it will be possible to make a difference in how science and engineering technicians are educated at all levels in this country." (NSF 95-6)

THE FORUM

Educators in the fields of math, science, and environmental technology education were invited to participate in the forum. These secondary and postsecondary educators were joined by employer, government, and professional society representatives who were leaders in their fields.

Prior to the actual forum event, participants received a list of issues and relevant background materials designed to stimulate their thinking in the particular critical issue category to which they were assigned. The participants were asked to review the list of critical issues and identify, or add to the list, those they considered most important.

To kick off the forum, a reception was held on Thursday evening, March 2 at the Holiday Inn - Capital in Washington, DC. Ellen Kabat, Director of ATEEC, welcomed the participants and discussed the objectives of the forum. Robert Watson, NSF's Director of the Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE), which co-administers the ATE program, spoke on the role of DUE. Watson stated that two-year colleges should place priority on partnerships with other institutions and with industry when applying for ATE grants. Following Watson's presentation, the participants met informally in their working groups.

On Friday morning the forum participants listened to presentations related to the five critical issues categories. Since one of the categories dealt with "Current and Future Employment Needs," Ken Chapman, Head Technician of Resources and Education for the American Chemical Society, spoke about planning for future workforce needs within the environmental technology field. This workforce will be enhanced by the movement toward voluntary skills standards in such occupations as chemical laboratory technician and process technical operator.

Margaret Cozzens, NSF's Division Director for Elementary, Secondary and Informal Education gave a presentation on the function of secondary education within the ATE program. Cozzens said it is estimated that in the future people will have seven different careers over the span of a lifetime. "Tracking" students into preparation for a specific career field is unwise. By strengthening technological education at the secondary level through the ATE program, educators can make sure students are prepared when they leave high school. When they change career fields later in life, the door will be left open for individuals with a solid foundation in math and science.

R. Thomas Parker, Jr., Executive Director of the Clinton Administration's Interagency Environmental Technologies Office (IETO), told the participants that he predicts the ever-increasing speed of technological advancement will create a need for people trained to assess technology applications. This technology assessor would be trained to determine ways technology could be useful to business, communities, government, and other entities early in the development of the technology. But before community colleges can lead the way in technology transfer, they must address the issue of leadership. "When I think of the community colleges, I have a hard time defining their context in this arena," said Parker. However, he added that he is not criticizing community colleges but is setting out the challenge before them. "It is essential that community colleges establish a context in which to address change in terms of their communities." He told the two-year college participants that they have an obligation to redefine their leadership.

"Two-year colleges are uniquely equipped to make decisions in a rapid, mobile environment and they are usually well connected to the rest of the world," said Parker. Therefore, two-year colleges are poised to act as the "information utility" for their communities. Like the local service station or the power company, the successful technology transfer college can supply information to citizen consumers.

Other speakers included Bob Knox, Deputy Director of the Office of Environmental Justice within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Elizabeth Teles, Program Director for Mathematics and Advanced Technological Education; James McKenney, Director of Economic Development for the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC); and Marjorie Buckholtz, Director of the Brownfields Group, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response.

Following the presentations, the participants broke into their assigned working groups and began to identify and prioritize what they believed were the most critical issues, using nominal group technique. Once the critical issues were identified, the working groups spent the afternoon and the following morning brainstorming and refining recommendations to address the issues. The technical chair for each group developed a rough draft of his or her group's recommendations. The draft reports were later sent to the working groups for their review and comments. After the group reports were compiled, each participant had the opportunity to submit revisions and write alternate recommendations to any part of the final report.

The next section of this document provides a participant's personal reflection on the issues and ideas presented at the Forum followed by detailed recommendations from the five working groups.

CLOSING

Two-year colleges must work cooperatively with business and industry, government, four-year institutions, secondary schools, and professional societies on ways to improve the quality of undergraduate education in order to meet the demands of the work place. No one group can do it alone; all must cooperate. Working together, academia and employers can improve the quality and effectiveness of mathematics, science, and environmental technology education at all levels. With continued support from the National Science Foundation and other organizations that share this vision, our nation will remain a leader in the world marketplace and meet the challenges of the future.