Millennials (also known as Generation Y) are the demographic cohort following Generation X. There are no precise dates for when this cohort starts or ends; demographers and researchers typically use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years. Millennials, who are generally the children of baby boomers and older Gen Xers, are sometimes referred to as “Echo Boomers” due to a major surge in birth rates in the 1980s and 1990s. The 20th-century trend toward smaller families in developed countries continued, however, so the relative impact of the “baby boom echo” was generally less pronounced than the original post–World War II boom.
Millennial characteristics vary by region, depending on social and economic conditions. However, the generation is generally marked by an increased use and familiarity with communications, media, and digital technologies. In most parts of the world, their upbringing was marked by an increase in a liberal approach to politics and economics; the effects of this environment are disputed. The Great Recession has had a major impact on this generation because it has caused historically high levels of unemployment among young people, and has led to speculation about possible long-term economic and social damage to this generation.
“The millennial” are now the largest generation now in our schools and on the job. In our schools we need training for our teachers and staff to understand the new generation that is now enrolling in schools and getting jobs in our workforce. If you have people attending your school or in your employment born from 1982 to 2000, you have millennials. We should have built into our operations and process new engagement models. Baby boomers were the largest generation of active workers. Schools and employers had built the engagement themes around people who had strengths with optimism, and willingness to work long hours. They were satisfied to work in large corporate hierarchies focused on individual performances.
Millennials are well-educated in technology, are capable of multi-tasking and have high energy. They prefer to work in teams. They seek challenges but rank their own life balances as priority. High importance to them is social interaction and seeing immediate results from their work. Patience for advancement is not acceptable and is seen as a weakness by older baby boomer employers or teachers. The best outcomes with millennials is when they work in teams and use more technology. Being civically minded is a high priority.
Creativity is rated very high by millennials. Solving complicated questions or problems is rewarding and desired. Acting on their own ideas is a motivator to greater success. Our engagement model in the classroom and on the job will need to change for higher success and productivity.
Classrooms will not succeed if the approach by the teacher is one size fits all. Education will need to be approached more on a micro scale with utilizing technology. Macro policy and driven procedures will be governed by executives and board of directors. Successful schools and employers will need to practice flexibility to new changes, provide for students and employees to learn and develop. Millennials are looking to have opportunities in challenging and interesting engagements by working in team activities.
The classroom and workforce at this period of history needs to recognize there is a diversity of generations and approach the generation differences accordingly.
Simon Sinek an author and speaker gives a succinct view of millenials:
It is quite clear for all of us to move forward with the belief of providing a successful experience for our students and employees we now need to become familiar with a new way of providing engagement. When we are looking at student retention, student success, employee success, employee retention our practices of the past will no longer be as effective. 51% of our current employees are looking for another job. Employees are no longer looking for a lifetime employer. This lack of loyalty could be the result of neglect. 57% believe they will leave their current job before 2020. Millennials believe businesses focus on personal agendas rather than considering the wider society. The three values of millennials are employer satisfaction/loyalty/fair treatment, ethics/trust/integrity/honesty and customer care/focus.
- The future of your dreams of a great business or school depends on your adapting to the new generational approaches you have learned to provide.
- Your data accumulated should be monitored for creating value and success by encouraging student or employee success. These studies should be on going to help support the winning process in practice.
- Transparency for the value of professional development. Helping others to develop and get better at what they do is a must for creating an environment of trust.
- Classrooms and businesses need multiple strategies to accomplish goals and purpose.
- Recognition of success and valued champions should be utilized to grow teams in the settings they are engaged.
- Teachers and managers should be given discretion to engage success by monitoring progress and influencing support for growth.
- Performance management for our students and employees will generate better outcomes and satisfaction for the future. When considering your new process for performance management be sure to consider the implementation of all the components of success.
There are schools and employers recognizing how to provide a better engagement philosophy. Let us share your purpose by instituting the process.
Career Schools have had a long and commendable history of serving communities, employers and our country in time of need. Enjoy the video of the History of Career Schools. After watching this movie I would encourage you to share it with others with you being a leader get to your civic organizations (Rotary, Lions, Chamber of Commerce ) and tell this story. Others can see this video at:
Anyone who has been recently or in the past were comfortable with a school or college that has maintained pride in being an accomplished member of an accreditation organization may be compromised with changes in the true meaning of being accrdited. Accreditation organizations have been the foundation for school and colleges for over one hundred years. Steps to improvement by all accreditation was through an approval process that required self reporting and peer review. Highlighted standards of school ethics, mission, financial resources, academic standards, curricula, support services for students and facilities were the focuses accepted and practiced by accreditation oversight. Accreditation created the process long before government involvement. So when asking the question of who regulated schools and colleges first to be part of an accreditation standard set by an individual organization gave light to the freedom of choice for schools to apply to an accreditation organization without the influence of any governmental regulations. When federal student loans and schools and colleges began to accept larger funding from tax dollars government became more interested in the components of accreditation. Up to this time in history accreditation organization was operating true to its mission and by-laws to govern the components of accreditation with peer review and self-reporting. When government leadership became a larger investor in the outcomes of colleges and schools the focus on past metrics were not enough. The emotional outcry from some government officials was to now include into accreditation components of student loan debt, graduation rates and employment salaries. Billions of dollars were being spent in government tax dollars for schools and colleges and there was a desperate realization of how to better review and audit this entitlement for students and schools.
Accreditation had always been focused on the implications of better learning opportunities by looking at the financial capability of schools to offer the necessary tools of human capital, equipment, materials and facilities to offer opportunity to the students. The importance of credentialed teachers with expertise in the subject matter and what they were to teach was an ultimate necessity for accreditation to require from school members. Peer visiting teams selected to review schools came from individuals who had been trained and exhibited noteworthy student centered philosophies. These professionals were to exam the schools capability to meet the hundreds of criteria adopted over many years of validation and implementations. Programmatically this was a professional and secure system to measure schools on their delivery systems considering the components of a functioning school. If accreditation can be looked at from the standpoint for the test of time we must say they have endured and grown as society, technology, philosophy and student demographics have changed. It has been a commendable partnership between academic freedom to embrace research, ideological test with the encouragement of imagination for a brighter future.
All of the aspects accreditation from the previous noted accomplishments and accountability made for good sense to give schools freedom to approach education with new ideas and imagination. Accreditation never detoured from their accepted and approved procedures. Accreditation gave society and employers the necessary confirmation the school or college doing the ratifications of a completed graduate that they would possess the skills in what ever profession they had trained would have skill capabilities.
In America with more and more funding coming more from the federal government for all schools P-16 sensitized government officials with the dollar amounts becoming larger and larger. As states began to realize the difficulty to fund schools this inherent responsibility of theirs was gradually being transferred to the federal government by the money trail of ownership by funding trails. In 1953, the Federal Security Agency was upgraded to a cabinet level status at the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. President Carter in 1979, advocated and succeeded to create the Department of Education. This may well have been the beginning of the inclusion of federal government regulations with oversight by the Department of Education peering into accreditation. The message to schools were to receive federal student loans your school must be accredited by a Department of Education approved accreditation organization. Throughout the 1980’s accreditation organizations didn’t see much of any changes to the operation of accreditation missions. The 1990’s, gave to some qualifiers of 85/15 for the amount of cash for profit schools would need to bring into their schools and colleges. Accreditors looked to the government regulations to monitor the accomplishment of the regulation. Accreditation remained true to their mission. In the decade starting in 2000 higher education was now being viewed as more and more as students and parents were consumers with protections from the government directed at all schools and colleges. Focus was on a school or colleges ability to perform by providing the education promised to students and parents with a return on investment providing employment, salaries commesurate to student loans. This now was a nuance presented and supported by some politicians where accountability added new metrics to measure but superseded past criteria. Criteria now from the Department of Education was being directed to graduation percentages, salaries at employment, student loan amounts and student default on loans. You can probably understand the hundred of years of accreditation mission and philosophy did not fit with the new governmental request for accountability. Accreditor organizations were looking at the maintaining a mission of affirming education quality with business management of student employment, salaries, student loan oversight and collections of student loans. Peer review and self reporting became unacceptable for colleges and schools to practice. Third party reports and the management and continuation of programs became a business decision rather than academic freedom to offer programs of choice by the student desires.
Accreditation organizations are facing a very difficult leap from the way they have addressed the higher education philosophy to a more consumer business platform. From a simple standpoint I would allow accreditors do what they have done well for years and years. What reparations government needs to accept is the business aspect of what they have granted and implement the checks and balances to protect federal taxpayer dollars. Accreditation is not the sensible organization body to do this. This area if need requires a separate quality assurance system to provide a seal of approval. Lets not encumber the value of encouraging great education theory and delivery with business demands.
I have included the latest CHEA business briefing regarding accreditation.
Gallup Research reveals some helpful discoveries all colleges should take notice.
Throughout my years working with proprietary schools I found one of the great added value propositions career schools offered was their career service departments. My years of working with colleges gave me the exposure to the process and support systems the colleges used. The years with career schools gave me a clear transparency on how important the career service department was to the graduates. These people worked through times of high unemployment to low unemployment. Their dedication and commitment to their graduates was commendable. Gallup just completed a research study on the value of the culmination activity for students during their education and after graduation with the need for career services. You will be enlightened by what these professionals discovered.