To: Manufacturing Technology Advisory Committee
From: Charles Dickinson 9/8/2004Industrial Maintenance Technology Instructor TMCC
Electrical Technology Instructor (part-time faculty) WNCC
To: Manufacturing Technology Advisory Committee
I apologize for my absence at the last meeting (due to a previously contracted PLC seminar in Denver). Because of my class schedule (my classes begin at 5:30) I also will not be attending any more meetings during the academic semester.
I do have issues and concerns I would like to address
1) I am concerned with what I see as an attempt to turn the MT program into a “soft-skills” , vs. “hands-on” program. If technical / vocational / “workforce-development” classes are reduced to “pass the math”, “pass the science” , “pass the English / history / ???”… the same people who dropped out of high school, will drop out of the program (The second chapter in the PLC book is “Number Systems & Codes”; if I attempted to teach that chapter, as written, half the class would drop). While “soft skills” can be taught, they must be integrated into the program as a necessary skill. We eventually get to algebra (although I would dare not call it that) in the basic electrical class; some simple trig. in AC; calculus in the instrumentation class. The troubleshooting (MC1 & MC2) class is an excellent opportunity for technical writing (what is wrong, what made it go wrong, how did you find the problem, what will it take to prevent a reoccurrence of the problem). The instrumentation class is an excellent vehicle for “applied physics”. Granted, some (maybe most) students need remedial work in basic subjects; but they will not take them! The class needs to provide the material in a useful, interactive, demonstrative (hands-on) way. Developing labs & curriculum takes a great deal of time (believe me). The “canned” program we saw demonstrated is as good, or better, as any I have seen. It appears to have national recognition by major industries and it’s available now… off the shelf.
2) In the original grant, there are seven classes mentioned that I currently teach (the grant was partially written around my program). I was given my “walking papers” (a notice of non-reappointment) last April by Mr. Laguerre’s (thankfully, due to contractual agreements, my last class at TMCC will not be until the end of Spring semester 2005). When I asked Mr. Laguerre “who is going to be teaching these classes” he replied “We have a year to find someone”
Note: Current salary for this position is approximately equal to a traffic signal repairman for the city of Sparks (not complaining, I took a 50% cut in pay to start the IMT program).
Frankly, I don’t believe the college can find anyone “field experienced”*2 to work for this pay rate… but the search needs to begin NOW. It will take the new instructor at least a year to get even a canned program in operation.
3) Technical programs are expensive and take a lot of valuable space and equipment. The cost per student is high, and the low student class ratio looks bad on the books. Plus… the administration has to deal with “the dirty fingernail bunch” who don’t fit neatly into academic categories (currently a Masters is preferred as the minimum requirement for instructor hire). It would be a lot easier (not to mention cheaper) to maneuver these program into already established fields of study, taught by current “academic” instructors (“technical” courses without a hands-on component, like a lot of UNR classes, God help us).
Community Colleges have traditionally been providers of “workforce development”. It appears to me that they want to move up in the social order and become “Mini-Universities” (and with steady enrollment growth in their academic programs, maybe this is where they should be placing their chips, with limited resources and all). Strictly business, bottom line, this may be the way to go. But a trained technical workforce will not be being provided to businesses in Nevada. Skills & wages will not rise (nor will the tax base); companies will still fail to relocate (noting a lack of skilled labor); advisory boards will still meet (still bemoaning the fact they can’t get their personnel trained); the College will still be asking for (and receiving) more money for “vocational / technical” education….
In my opinion, it is unfortunate that the current administration chose to “reassign” Bill Verbeck former AIT Dean, and that the previous Associate Dean (who drafted much of the grant) “self-destructed”. They had a plan and a vision I do not believe the current administration holds.
Hold this administration to their word *1. This money is allocated to continue to build a solid technical skills program.
A good basic framework for technical / vocational “workforce” education exists at Edison. Note: There is currently over $60,000 worth of equipment, mostly donated by industry, in my IMT labs alone. Keep the program moving forward, and do not let this chance slip away. Once core classes in a program are “not offered this semester”, that program is gone (and stays gone).
I have developed (and teach) seven IMT courses here at Edison (both on-site & on-line) current class enrollment 27 students, and continue to develop and teach new “short-course’s” for MAP currently 14 students at “Starbucks Roasting Plant, and hold training seminars across the country for a national training company
*1 About $260,000 of the award will go toward creating the manufacturing degree, Green said.
“We take every program we start seriously,” TMCC President Philip Ringle said to Ensign during the announcement. “I will pledge on behalf of the school that we will actually do these things.”
*2 My Experience: 20+ years industrial experience, 10 years at corporate level (as an engineering technician, automation & telecommunications)
13+ years Training experience, 8 years seminar leader (nationally) 5 years TMCC, plus part-time.
My “Credentials” B.A. Industrial Arts, Fresno State, ISA CCST3, *3 FCC General (Commercial Radiotelephone) License, Three Ca. Community College Instructor Credentials.
*Note on CCST (Certified Control Systems Technicians).
For those of you who may not know, this is the certification for Instrumentation & Control Technicians. I believe there are around four-thousand CCST’s (all levels). There are eleven CCST’s in Northern Nevada (five level three’s, two, including myself, in Reno/Sparks).
posted by cl @ 5:04 PM
0 comments
