I'd rather be on a path than in a pipe

This is a theme emerging in a stakeholder assessment for workforce education. It goes like this: By replacing "pipeline" with "pathway" to conceptualize a workforce development system, change and improvements to that system will be more human-centric, cognizant of the prevailing forces, and adaptable to the anticipated future.

Short way around the barn: Change the analogy to affect the effect. Let's dig in!

Pipeline

Many stakeholders and observers of workforce development think and talk about workforce education programs as being "pipelines." The "pipeline" usually includes middle and high schools, adult learner on-ramps, professional and technical college programs, workplace learning, and employment. The notion is that

1. the "pipeline" supplies a resource (a person)
2. collected in one place (secondary education or adult learner entry point) and
3. transferred to another (workplace),
4. usually routed through a value-added process (post-secondary education).

The "pipeline" analogy is problematic for several reasons and may be a barrier to improvement and change of the workforce development ecosystem. This mental construct obscures and can lead to neglect of the affective aspects of the actual human development process happening inside the "pipe." The "resources" (people) are undergoing massive transformation (learning, developing, growing) while in transit. Explicit shortcomings of the analogy include:

• A pipe is closed, you can't see in.
• A pipe is fixed, changing routes requires significant effort.
• A pipe objectifies people into a resource to be exploited.

Pathway

Another common analogy for the same workforce development ecosystem is "pathway." This term is used widely and intentionally to describe the "opportunities" for learners to envision a destination of their choosing and power their journey with internal motivation supported by a nurturing environment. As an example of its intentional use, consider the names of many advising and counseling programs incorporating "pathway" into their titles (i.e., guided pathways, career pathways, etc).

In addition to the "pathway" analogy being more focused on the affective aspects that go into successful student learning, the analogy seems to be more representational of reality. For example:

• Pipes require pressure for movement; paths require volition.
• Pipes guarantee delivery; paths guarantee opportunity.
• Pipes are predictable because they're a closed system; paths are open, ephemeral, and subject to external forces.
• Pipes break, paths evolve.

Thinking and talking about the ecosystem supporting workforce development as a "pathway" is how the leaders and change agents can strengthen student volition, fortify opportunity with access, and create educational systems that acknowledge and adapt to the realities of people's lives.

As the title says, I'd rather be on a path than in a pipe.