Workforce Development - A Good Investment?

Why The United States Needs a National Skills Agenda

The Council on Competitiveness in April published the Thrive report, the first in a series of targeted benchmarking reports intended to illuminate key areas of competitive advantage for Americans to succeed in the 21st century and provide an important framework for charting a path to prosperity for American citizens.

The Council on Competitiveness refers to itself as the only group of corporate CEOs, university presidents and labor leaders committed to the future prosperity of all Americans and enhanced U.S. competitiveness in the global economy through the creation of high-value economic activity in the United States.

The insightful report (available for free download) discusses in depth specific issues and strategies relating to increasing our global competitiveness through focused and aggressive workforce development practices.  The synopsis of the call to action follows:

During a time of turbulence and transition—driven by globalization, accelerating technological change, and volatility in global energy, currency and financial markets—America needs a national skills agenda to compete globally and to ensure a rising standard of living for its citizens.

National and Global Demographic Trends Are Raising Red Flags. Slowing growth of the U.S. workforce has the potential to slow economic output if productivity does not increase. Lack of adequate reading and math skills among new U.S. workers compounds this challenge. At the same time, hundreds of millions of educated foreign workers are entering the global workforce and competing for jobs that are increasingly vulnerable to Offshoring.

Four Critical Skills Strategies for the United States

1) Meet the Demand for Middle Skills

Middle-skilled jobs represent the largest number of total openings in the United States until 2016, and the United States is failing to adequately train Americans to take advantage of this opportunity. These jobs do not always require a college degree, but most require training, technical sophistication and initiative. They pay well and do not offshore easily.

2) Build Service Economy Skills

More than three-quarters of all jobs in the United States are in the service economy, yet many policymakers view them as low-skill, low-wage options. In fact, the service sector is driving demand for more complex and creative skill sets—including problem solving, communications, entrepreneurship, computational analysis, collaboration and teamwork.

3) Compete for Innovation Advantage

Simply saying America needs more scientists and engineers is no guarantee that the United States can compete successfully in a global economy in which many nations have copied our model. Policymakers must recognize that the margin of advantage will flow from the fusion of cutting-edge capabilities with entrepreneurial, creative and interdisciplinary talent. Four potential areas to start with to create competitive advantage:

• More integrative scientists and engineers

• More entrepreneurial scientists and engineers

• More business-savvy service scientists and engineers

• More computational scientists and engineers to leverage America’s IT advantage

4) Create Skills for Sustainability

Sustainability will become a more important determinant of global hiring and investment patterns. Where new and growing companies locate and where jobs are created will depend in large measure on which countries successfully anticipate these opportunities and take steps to educate and train workers in these fields. America must get out front and move fast to develop the talent and skills workforce to capture these opportunities.

We are ALL impacted by our willingness and ability to move this initiative ahead.  If we ALL take ownership at a personal level of just ONE of these areas and work with our companies, schools and colleagues, we CAN make a measurable difference in our country. 

If of course, you feel that leaving it to others will "git er done", then prepare yourself for the inevitable consequences.

What messages are we sending to students?

Students are influenced by parents, faculty, peers and society at large, as they ponder their life choices, which include fields of study, choice of career path, etc.

But are students (at all ages) making informed career choices?  In today's increasingly sophisticated business climate, does having no Baccalaureate degree = a dead end?

Today's students I fear are abysmally unaware of the many career choices available to them.  Nor, do I perceive that the pathways from educational pursuit to career are being clearly laid out before them.

There is, in my humble opinion, more emphasis on who is getting the jobs now, as opposed to who will get to keep them in the future.  Don't get me wrong, having a near term focus is important, but not at the risk of short-term gain that will lead to a dead-end later on.

That's why lifelong learning and development are so important to be instilled in our learners today.  Unfortunately, this is frequently not the case. 

Here's an assignment - you need to comment back on this post and share with our readers...

Ask some of the young people that you encounter that are completing their last year of school.  Ask them what's next in their life...

Don't be surprised if you hear
School -- Boy! I’m glad that’s over -- now I can get to work!

Houston - We Have a Problem

As we ponder the many changes happening in the workforce and how we educate people, there are some "perception issues" that I feel need to be addressed:

Do we have the right emphasis on the role of "technological education?"  Do we view technological education as engineering “lite” versus education for a "legitimate" profession?

Is the role of the scientist, or engineer more important than that of the electrician?  In what ways do the work of each impact us directly?

I also increasingly perceive a lack of common agreement among educators on the issue of focus / value of education for people entering the trades versus professions.

For many years I have held to the belief that you get the behaviors that you reward.  In the workforce development area, I do not see clear measures of success that are clear to learners (e.g. are we rewarding graduation versus placement?)

Likewise, have we examined the quality of relationships that educators have with business?  Despite having  Industry Advisory committees, are these committees providing the caliber and numbers of workers that industry needs? 

Have we struck the right balance between the skills needed by tradeworkers upon whom we are day-to-day dependent, as contrasted with the graduate who will apply technological skills in a different manner?

Readers, your thoughts?

Nontraditional Teachers Lining Up

One of the great educational challenges we face today is the shortage of individuals want to teach and who can teach our youth what they will need to know to cut it in our rapidly changing world.

Why does this article resonate with me?

For one thing, the teachers "in the system" are in many cases struggling just to maintain their existing teaching load, and are themselves challenged by school district bureaucracies and policies.  Where are the "real world" perspectives to come from, amidst a rapidly changing jobs landscape.

For example, how many teachers and guidance counselors are introducing our youth to careers in construction, where the pay, benefits and job security are above average?  Do the current faculty see construction as much more than the "summer job" that they may have held before, where they were little more than job site general labor?  Does such an attitude dissuade them from encouraging youth to learn about jobs in this industry? 

Do our current cadre of teachers and guidance counselors have an awareness of the types of match, science, or communications skills that these youth will need to be able to enter the field at the "skilled worker" level?  Are these teaching professionals even aware that people without a degree with just a few years of experience with these skills are being actively sought after and snagging annual pay in the high five and low six figures? 

Yet because of youth making misinformed academic choices they often end up competing after graduation for "commodity" jobs that are often not fulfilling.  If they had chosen a path that enabled them to grasp basic math/algebra/geometry skills, they would likely find themselves in  a better bargaining position for jobs.

So it boils down to how to get people from the professions to step into the teaching profession to expose our youth to some of these possibilities.

Check out this story about a St. Paul schools program, designed to find candidates for hard-to-fill jobs by making teachers out of professionals coming from other fields.

read more | digg story

It would appear that they AREN'T ready to work

Mark Schoeff Jr. over at Workforce Management published a brief entitled Skills Of Recent U.S. High School Graduates Leave Employers Cold that references previous posts in this blog about the report, “Are They Really Ready to Work?”

What's interesting about Mark's update is what has happened since this report was published. Workforce advocates came to  in late March to get the attention of Congress on what they call an urgent problem with the labor market: High school graduates are deficient and those with a college education only adequate in key skills employers are demanding to cope with global economic competition.

In a March 28 Capitol Hill briefing, the groups presented findings from their poll of about 400 companies showing that new entrants to the U.S. workforce generally disappoint those who would like to give them their first job. High school-educated workers lack the level of ability employers seek in everything from writing and work ethic to oral communication. Twenty-three percent to 27 percent of respondents said college graduates were weak in writing and leadership.

These are critical deficiencies that need to be addressed, and need to receive the funding priority to make the needed changes in our education and training infrastructure.  Left in it's current state, we'll be in a heck of a mess, increasingly unable to meet the most basic needs of our society.

Do We Have Time for Needed Engineering Education Reform?

Pat Galloway, a noted blogger and writer, and CEO of the Seattle-based Nielsen-Wurster Group  was appointed by President Bush to serve a six-year term as a director of the 24-member National Science Board, the National Science Foundation's governing body.

Recently she published "Is Engineering Education in Need of Reform?" a critical analysis of the current crisis in backfilling the shortage of engineering talent in the US.

The premise that Dr. Galloway presents is that in the past, the skills workers acquired would serve them well for decades. However, in the 21st century, an engineer’s success or a firm’s success will be measured against how well he or she can adapt to new conditions and technologies.  Thus to remain competitive in this global and knowledge-based economy and to ensure that the quality of life improves for everyone around the world, engineers must be educated differently.

It's a great article.  Let me know what you think?

Professors take the long course in poverty

The American Association of University Professors, states 68% percent of all jobs in higher education are part-time, temporary, or both, and are often paid no more than $1,600 to $2,400 a course, without benefits of any sort, much less contracts extending beyond the current term. 

At a time when serious questions exist about the quality of education in the U.S. you'll find this article a painful insight how the university "system" is putting finances ahead of quality education. 

Do we really expect to turn out top talent from our schools, when we are shortchanging the teaching staff?

read more | digg story

Looked at the 2008 Federal Budget Lately?

I recently took a closer look at the 2008 Federal Budget.  What I saw troubled me - a lot.

It cuts funding for career and technical education in half, and job training programs by $1 billion.

These programs are critical if we are going to continue to prepare workers to meet the demands of the 21st century workforce. Job Corps is reduced by $55 million, or 3.5 percent. It also would cut Head Start by $100 million.

As we enter a time of increasingly sophisticated skills being needed in order to meet the workforce needs of today and tomorrow, doesn't this seem a bit strange to you?

Our Schools are Becoming Dropout Factories

Imagine a nation in which all students, from Benton Harbor to Watts, from Akron to Baltimore, from Chicago’s South side to rural South Carolina, routinely graduate from high school ready and prepared to succeed in college or advanced post-secondary training. Imagine the social and economic implications of being able to say to any child, in any locale in the United States, “you will be provided with a high school that will educate you, challenge you, care for you, support you, and graduate you ready to compete and succeed in the world.” Fifty years after Brown vs. the Board of Education, the image of public high schools providing all youth with equal opportunity to receive a high quality education remains inspiring and compelling.

Current reality, however, offers a much more troubled picture. In each of the locations listed above, half or more of high school students do not graduate, let alone leave high school prepared to fully participate in civic life. It is no coincidence that these locales are gripped by high rates of unemployment, crime, ill health, and chronic despair. For many in these and other areas, the only real and lasting pipeline out of poverty in modern America, a solid high school education followed by post secondary schooling or training, is cracked and broken. Consider the central findings of this study:

• Nearly half of our nation’s African American students, nearly 40% of Latino students, and only 11% of white students attend high schools in which graduation is not the norm.
• Between 1993 and 2002, the number of high schools with the lowest levels of success in promoting freshmen to senior status on time (a strong correlate of high dropout and low graduation rates) increased by 75%, compared with only an 8% increase in the total number of high schools.
• There are currently between 900 and 1,000 high schools in the country in which graduating is at best a 50/50 proposition. In 2,000 high schools, a typical freshman class shrinks by 40% or more by the time the students reach their senior year. This represents nearly one in five regular or vocational high schools in the U.S. that enroll 300 or more students.
• A majority minority high school is five times more likely to have weak promoting power (promote 50% or fewer freshmen to senior status on time) than a majority white school.
• Poverty appears to be the key correlate of high schools with weak promoting power. Majority minority high schools with more resources (e.g., selective programs, higher per pupil expenditures, suburban location) successfully promote students to senior status at the same rate as majority white schools.
• The majority of high schools with weak promoting power are located in northern and western cities and throughout the southern states.
• High schools with the worst promoting power are concentrated in a sub-set of states. Nearly 80% of the nation’s high schools that produce the highest number of dropouts can be found in just 15 states (Arizona, California, Georgia, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas).
• While only 20% of high schools that enroll more than 300 students are located in large and medium-sized cities, 60% of the nation’s high schools with the lowest levels of promoting power are found in these cities.
• Many cities have high concentrations of high schools with weak promoting power. In half of the nation’s largest 100 cities, 50% or more of high school students who attend regular or vocational high schools with more than 300 students attend high schools with weak promoting power. In some cities, students have virtually no other choice but to attend a high school with weak promoting power.
• More than half of African American students in Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania attend high schools in which the majority of students do not graduate on time, if at all. African American students in these states are up to 10 times more likely to attend a high school with very weak promoting power, high dropout and low graduation rates than white students.
• Five southern states—Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida, and Texas— collectively lead the nation in both total number and level of concentration of high schools with weak promoting power.

These findings are a chilling reminder of how much further we need to go to truly realize the vision of Brown. They are also a call to action. We must no longer tolerate the squandered potential, limited life chances, and social malaise that result from poorly educating our nation’s youth. Increasing momentum for high school reform is a promising development but must not become a passing fad. With sustained commitment and judicious use of resources, transforming the American high school will be a powerful vehicle to achieving a more just and prosperous society.

Stopping the Evaporation of Graduate Women Engineers

There's a wealth of information and resources that are available to facilitate young women that are seeking to enter the engineering discipline.

The following is a partial list of sources you may wish to investigate:


    Women in Engineering Programs and Advocates Network (WEPAN):

The mission of WEPAN is to be a “catalyst, advocate, and leading resource for institutional and national change that will result in the full participation of women in engineering”.

Society of Women Engineers (SWE): 

The mission of SWE is to “stimulate women to achieve full potential in careers as engineers and leaders, expand the image of the engineering profession as a positive force in improving the quality of life, and demonstrate the value of diversity.”

Yearly women in engineering literature reviews available

Assessing Women and Men in Engineering

Excellent annotated bibliographies, literature overviews

American Society for Engineering Education

Publishes Journal of Engineering Education, Prism Magazine, Engineering Colleges Profiles and Statistics, ASEE conference proceedings

Frontiers in Education conference proceedings

MentorNet: national electronic mentoring program

I've personally interacted with most of these organizations and can vouch for their passion and understanding of how to get more graduate engineers out of the "engineer pipeline"

Check them out!

Does Playing Games Make You Smarter?

Games may be crucial to ensure the skilled talent pool we need now and in the years ahead...

According to a 2002 study by Gentile & Walsh, American children aged 2-7 play computer games an average of 43 min/day, children aged 8-12 play an average of 56 min/day, and children aged 13-17 play an average of 78 min/day.

Our youth are accustomed to learning through games.  In fact, games are largely responsible for the use of the computer.  According to a national survey conducted by the National Institute on Media and the Family, 92% of kids age 2-17 play video and computer games.  Michigan State University also conducted a longitudinal study of 140 low-income children and their Internet use at home; participants reported game play as their primary reason for using their computers.

For most of you, learning was chiefly considered fun during your stint in grade school when learning games were commonplace. However, once you hit junior high and then high school, learning seemed to be required and was not necessarily fun anymore. Games were no longer commonplace, long lectures, extensive reading assignments and homework became the routine.

 

No matter what your age, games are fun and naturally give people enjoyment and pleasure. Whether it’s a board game, computer game, video game or basketball game, most involve people, inspire interaction, offer challenges, stir a competitive spirit and of course, provide satisfaction. Simply put, games engage people.

 

That’s why corporate learning organizations worldwide increasingly develop and implement learning games and simulations for their employees. Learning games and simulations, much like the ones that were played during grade school, can improve learner engagement, learner participation and comprehension, retention and more.

So should we be focusing our attention on Educational Games?  Consider what's at risk.

• U.S. workforce must raise skills to compete in global labor markets
• U.S. workforce must raise skills to support an innovation based economy
• U.S. workforce must be ready for new jobs created by technological advancements
• Digital media the medium of attention for youth
• Schools must become high-performance organizations

What does this suggest to you?

We Can Educate Better In House...

Here's another clear indication that companies lack confidence in U.S higher education. Some 1,600+ company-specific “universities” operate in the United States. Apparently, those companies believe that they can do a better job educating their employees than America’s colleges can.

But is it really better, or just more cost-effective?

When tough economic times slash or burn your training budget, that doesn't mean you stop training. It means you work harder to keep training.  Often that means putting your staff to work training each other.  Does this work?  Apparently, almost 2,000 companies think so.

What do you, readers, think?  Is it more education, more value, or just more convenient?