I am with Tom Bewick. Many of Nick's specifics are on track, but the thrust of the article -- that we should be proud of our underfunded and under-sized apprenticeship system because it can keep the riffraff out — seems way out of sync.
Nick's review of the legislative history of the NAA is helpful because it points to the need to update …
I am with Tom Bewick. Many of Nick's specifics are on track, but the thrust of the article -- that we should be proud of our underfunded and under-sized apprenticeship system because it can keep the riffraff out — seems way out of sync.
Nick's review of the legislative history of the NAA is helpful because it points to the need to update the legislative basis of apprenticeship, not because we should conform expectations to a 90-year-old piece of legislation.
Nick is right that the registered apprenticeship is a marker of quality. And it should continue to be. But why must quality be the enemy of efficiency and scale?
Nick is right that our apprenticeship system is not really a system. As a Canadian friend of mine said to me, "The US doesn't have an apprenticeship system, so much as it has an apprenticeship situation." But is this really the best we can do?
And Nick is right that we systemmatically under-invest in apprenticeship. But I don't think we need to take the current $380 million appropriation as some divinely ordained upward limit. Other countries have rebalanced workforce and education investments to favor apprenticeship investments. I refuse to believe we live in a country where we can't have nice things.
I am with Tom Bewick. Many of Nick's specifics are on track, but the thrust of the article -- that we should be proud of our underfunded and under-sized apprenticeship system because it can keep the riffraff out — seems way out of sync.
Nick's review of the legislative history of the NAA is helpful because it points to the need to update the legislative basis of apprenticeship, not because we should conform expectations to a 90-year-old piece of legislation.
Nick is right that the registered apprenticeship is a marker of quality. And it should continue to be. But why must quality be the enemy of efficiency and scale?
Nick is right that our apprenticeship system is not really a system. As a Canadian friend of mine said to me, "The US doesn't have an apprenticeship system, so much as it has an apprenticeship situation." But is this really the best we can do?
And Nick is right that we systemmatically under-invest in apprenticeship. But I don't think we need to take the current $380 million appropriation as some divinely ordained upward limit. Other countries have rebalanced workforce and education investments to favor apprenticeship investments. I refuse to believe we live in a country where we can't have nice things.