October 1st, 2014
Expanding in the USA? No, but career and technical education is expanding in China! The Chinese government recently announced a dramatic “pivot” toward vocational education. The Chinese plan includes converting 600 colleges into vocational schools. The Chinese plan also includes boosting the number of vocational students from 29 million to 39 million, a 34% increase. Should we take notice?
On the downside, China’s educational system lacks the USA’s flexibility and multiple re-entry points for continued college degree attainment. In addition, young Chinese are faced with a high-stakes exam at the end of high school that determines if they have any future in higher education. China’s three-day exam is called the National Higher Education Entrance Examination or gaokao. This grueling exam is held in June of each year, and measures preparation for university work. The gaokao tests determine a young persons future regarding continued education—and overall opportunity in life. A high school student’s life revolves around preparing only for the content that is tested. All other learning is ignored. It is common for teachers to “X” out whole sections of textbook content not included in the exam. That is an example of teaching-to-the-test. Does any of this sound familiar in our current intensive student-testing climate? The Chinese plan for vocational education includes adding vocational skill assessment to the gaokao so as to facilitate access to post-high school training.
China’s one-time chance for access to post-secondary system is not what we want in the USA. Community colleges were developed to ensure open access to higher education opportunity. We want students to be able to develop their full potential. Consider this quote from Dr. Louisa Moats, a founding developer of the Common Core State Standards:
“The Common Core Standards represent lofty aspirational goals for students aiming for four year, highly selective colleges. Realistically, at least half, if not the majority, of students are not going to meet those standards as written, although the students deserve to be well prepared for career and work through meaningful and rigorous education. Our lofty standards are appropriate for the most academically able, but what are we going to do for the huge numbers of kids that are going to “fail” the test?”
Good question, what will we do? What the Chinese did, over the past 15 years, was carry out an agenda that we are now pursuing. The Chinese agenda was to greatly expand the number of university degrees awarded. This goal was achieved, and the Chinese dramatically increased the number of university graduates. The result was a sudden increase in the number of graduates in non-graduate occupations (sometimes referred to as “gringos”) fueling disappointment and disconnects with the job market. How many USA gringos do you know paying off student loans?
In the USA, the federal government has called for career and technical education to be more job-driven. This is sound guidance; good CTE programs have always been job-driven. A primary goal of a CTE program is a job at the end. This year, for the first time in a decade, the U.S. government boosted funding for high school and college career and technical education by $1.125 billion. This is an amount that is $188 million smaller than in 2004.
A current federal initiative proposes to expand apprenticeship in the USA. Apprenticeship is the learn-while-you-earn model of career and technical education, and requires a much higher level of engagement by employers. Competitive grants will be available late this year that seek to double the number of apprentices in the USA over the next 5 years. This is a step in the right direction, but are we prepared to pivot toward career and technical education as our Chinese competitors are doing?
by Robert G. Ketchum, Ph.D.
Previously published in the North Idaho Business Journal
August 26th, 2014
A University of Idaho colleague recently asked me, “What defines technical education?” This question was not unusual; I have answered this question many times before.
The answer requires some explanation. Beginning in the 1980’s, what was called vocational education for decades was rebranded nationwide as career and technical education (CTE.) This was done in an effort to project a new image, and escape what was viewed as a negative public perception. In 2006, the last reference to “vocational” was removed from federal legislation. Also during this period, the higher cost of career and technical programs caused such programs to disappear from high schools all across the country, and expand in community and technical colleges that made CTE central to their missions.
During this period of name change, general education courses were increasingly taken together with occupationally specific education (CTE.) No longer is occupationally specific skill training offered without the foundational skills such as applied math and writing and reading for understanding. The Common Core is now poised to further impact CTE.
Some remnants of the politically incorrect term “vocational” remain. For example, the Hedlund Building on the North Idaho College campus still says “vocational,” and my Ph.D. will always remain in vocational-technical education (that should date me!) Idaho chose to use the name professional-technical education (PTE) instead of career and technical education, and was the only state in that nation to use this name. I’ll refer to CTE. In Idaho, CTE also means separate funding. CTE is separately funded in Idaho, and operates a statewide technical college system as well as provide funding for high school programs.
As with many things, varied definitions can be found. Here is the federal legal definition for career and technical education:
Career and Technical Education (CTE) is a sequence of courses that:
- Provides individuals with coherent and rigorous content aligned with challenging academic standards and relevant technical knowledge and skills needed to prepare for further education and careers in current or emerging professions;
- Provides technical skill proficiency, an industry- recognized credential, a certificate, or an associate degree; and
- Includes competency-based applied learning that contributes to the academic knowledge, higher-order reasoning and problem-solving skills, work attitudes, general employability skills, technical skills, and occupation- specific skills, and knowledge of all aspects of an industry, including entrepreneurship, of an individual.
Here is a simpler, more brief, definition:
Career and technical education is a term applied to schools, institutions, and educational programs that specialize in the skilled trades, applied sciences, modern technologies, and career preparation.
Why is the definition of CTE important? It is important because students pursuing a college or university education want their tuition to produce a paying job at the end of the experience. If the learning experience is more closely aligned with the needs of employers, the more likely a job can be found. The traditional differences between academic learning and CTE have become less clear, and in fact, college applicants are wise to investigate how closely their chosen college or university major is linked to business and industry expectations. The more closely linked a program is to the job market, the more likely the graduate is to find employment.
My favored definition is as follows; career and technical education (CTE) draws curriculum from the current knowledge, skills and abilities used in business and industry. This definition can be contrasted with what we call academic learning. Academic learning typically draws curriculum from tradition, books and academic experts. This difference in the source of curriculum is what truly defines the difference between CTE and academic instruction.
Vocational education didn’t disappear; in fact, the practical “vocational” perspective toward the role of education in life has come to dominate student choices. Recent surveys of entering college students report the number one reason (85%) for pursuing a college education is “to get a better job.” Isn’t that a definition of vocational education?
By Robert G. Ketchum, Ph.D.
Previously published in the North Idaho Business Journal
July 29th, 2014
By Robert G. Ketchum, Ph.D.
North Idaho College’s Trustees recently voted to establish the new home for NIC’s career and technical program adjacent to the Kootenai Technical Education Campus (KTEC). It appears that NIC is evolving an organizational structure similar to the successful model used at the Community Colleges of Spokane (CCS).
The CCS model is a two-campus system where each campus primarily focuses on a specific student population. CCS has a career and technical education campus — Spokane Community College — and an academic transfer campus, Spokane Falls Community College. Additionally, CCS has The Institute for Extended Learning, which is a program that targets continuing education learners and working adults and is similar to NIC’s Workforce Training Center in Post Falls. These targeted programs and services, as in Spokane, will serve to create a clear customer focus rather than a one-size fits all approach.
Aligning with the needs of business and industry has become part of the goal of the University of Idaho’s Coeur d’Alene Center. A position has been created at the U of I Coeur d’Alene Center adding Karen Thurston, who will be developing new business for the University through several initiatives.
Karen comes to the U of I with experience gained over more than 20 years in the software industry, beginning as a programmer/analyst, and evolving into product and project management, high volume web site operation, and consulting. Her software and consulting company worked for multinational corporations, telecommunications giants, and the State of California. She earned a Master of Science in computer science from California State University in Sacramento, and says her work experiences provided just as much of an education as earning her degree.
What new business will you be developing for the University?
I have three areas of focus: research and development support for regional technology businesses and startups; directed through the University’s nonprofit research arm; customized continuing and professional education; and developing computer science and related training programs at the Coeur d’Alene Center.
What is your target market for customized continuing and professional education?
I’ll be focusing on local technology businesses, but geography is not a limiting factor. The nature of higher education has evolved dramatically in a short time. Online learning has produced competitive models for corporate learning. Higher education institutions must adapt to the needs of industry or risk becoming irrelevant. I will be connecting with local companies initially, to learn their most pressing requirements for technical and management skills. We will develop specific solutions to meet the needs of our partner companies. The University plans to complement existing local offerings with longer-term learning and development programs through company relationships using contract education strategies.
Ending with a quote from Richard Novak, vice-president of continuing studies and distance education at Rutgers University, regarding the value of the corporate training market to higher education:
“This market (contract education) is critical to higher education, especially to larger higher education institutions. It is beneficial for a number of reasons and that includes the ability to have a relationship that can extend over a long period of time; where we may have a place for some of our graduates to land, we may have opportunities for internships, we can sustain our on-campus continuing education business, we can perhaps attract some of the folks back to complete … another degree with us.
The goal is to develop that lifelong relationship, and with the whole organization, because in a university that has many different schools and many different departments, there are opportunities to connect with that corporate partner in a lot of different disciplines…”
Dr. Robert Ketchum is lecturer in Occupational Education, University of Idaho, Coeur d’Alene Center.
Previously published in the North Idaho Business Journal
June 24th, 2014
Workers need to quickly learn new jobs, or learn new job duties, in this era of skill shortages. In recent articles, I’ve made reference to using a systematic approach to employee training. This systematic strategy is called structured on-the-job training (SOJT.) SOJT contrasts with unstructured OJT (also known as “deep end” training or “follow someone around” training). No one can train your people better than your own organization. No one knows the skills your organization needs like your own team.
Step 1: PREPARE THE WORKERHow do you train your people quickly and effectively? Should you rely on online training? Maybe bring in an outside trainer? Or, do your own training? Even if employees bring diplomas and degrees, 80 to 90 percent of the job skills employees need to perform well in the workplace will be learned on the job. How can this training be done quickly and effectively? Assuming new employees have been screened for the foundational skills such as applied math, reading for understanding, etc., what is the next step?
“Telling isn’t teaching, and listening isn’t learning” is an important lesson for new teachers. The same lesson applies when training new employees. “If the person hasn’t learned, then the instructor hasn’t taught” is the simple truth in employee training. When an employee fails to learn the job, who is responsible — the trainee or the supervisor? New hires are often thrown into a job and told to follow someone around to learn the job. The person being followed frequently is not prepared to do training, or even want to do training. OJT trainers should be specifically selected and trained to perform the OJT trainer role.
During World War II, the USA operated the Training Within Industry (TWI) Service. The TWI Service used SOJT strategies to quickly develop the world’s finest wartime workforce. America’s workforce was able to out-produce every other country, all with a workforce that seldom had any prior manufacturing experience or skill training. The workforce ramp-up to World War II production required dealing with the biggest “skills gap” in history. The TWI Service was responsible for that training success.
The most widely used technique of TWI is called Job Instruction (JI) and includes the Four Step Method. The Four Step Method is simple and yet profoundly effective.
• Put the person at ease
• State the job
• Find out what the person already knows
• Get the person interested in learning the job
• Put the person in the correct position
Step 2: PRESENT THE OPERATION
• Tell, show and illustrate-one IMPORTANT STEP at a time
• Stress each Key Point and its Reason
• Instruct clearly, completely and patiently, giving no more than they can master at one time.
Step 3: TRY OUT PERFORMANCE
• Have the person do the job-correct for errors
• Have the person do the job-explain KEY POINTS and REASONS
• Make sure the person understands.
• Continue until YOU know THEY know.
Step 4: FOLLOW UP
• Put on own
• Who to go to for help
• Check frequently
• Encourage questions
• Taper off coaching
These basic teaching steps can be used in any training situation to improve learning and retention of learning. From this basic TWI Four Step strategy comes modern structured OJT. SOJT is implemented in any business or industry, not solely manufacturing. SOJT should include a proven instructor selection method, and provide instructor development training. SOJT also prepares new OJT trainers to do job and task analysis. Job and task analysis produces the training content that validates what should be taught in the workplace. The development of SOJT training content supports standard work and lean practices. Use of effective training strategies assures that a company avoids the skills gap. A learning organization can adapt to new technology, and to new business opportunity. The lesson is to own in-house the skills your organization needs.
Robert Ketchum is lecturer in Occupational Education, University of Idaho, Coeur d’Alene Center. Previously published in the North Idaho Business Journal
May 28th, 2014
Academic curriculum is typically derived from books and tradition, rather than analysis of business and industry skill needs. The IBE study described in this issue seeks to understand the skill needs of business and industry. Will the IBE study drive change in Idaho’s education enterprise? Determining the skill needs of business and industry has always been the strategy for career and technical education school curriculum. Will this IBE study influence the rest of academia to look to business and industry needs, rather than using traditional methods to determine school-based curriculum?
The IBE report is based on a survey. Surveys are helpful, but it is better to use direct analysis of incumbent employees to determine what skills are actually used in the workplace. Direct analysis of incumbent employees is the methodology of ACT’s WorkKeys work readiness system.
ACT (the college testing people) has invested millions of dollars, and over 20 years, conducting industry and job analysis. The WorkKeys system links results of job analysis to the WorkKeys proven work readiness assessment and credentialing system. This nationwide system could be readily implemented in Idaho.
The WorkKeys credential is a post-secondary credential, and certifies that a prospective employee or graduate can perform the skills that business and industry require. Skills trump diplomas once the hiring phase is done. Idaho needs an effective work readiness certification for all graduating students at all levels. Work readiness certification is not the same as the Common Core. Technology and economic change have the workplace in flux. How can education and business build skills needed to compete in the global marketplace? One of the first steps is to link educational programs to business and industry skill needs.
The cost versus the benefit question regarding higher education is in the news and on the minds of parents and students. This perspective is return on investment (ROI.) Parents and students must weigh the rising cost of post-secondary education with salaries or wages that have been losing ground to inflation.
Federal research shows $800,000 in extra lifetime earnings for college graduates. However, we also know that 25% to 50% of college graduates are underemployed in jobs that do not require a bachelor’s degree (varies by degree major.) When choosing to pay for a university degree, the hottest topic is “what major will lead to a job?” Easy answers for parents and students are not simple to provide. A highly regarded Coeur d’Alene business leader often advises students to consider plumbing! Plumbing cannot be outsourced, and retiring Baby Boomers are hollowing out the ranks of skilled plumbers. The skilled trades are often overlooked in our “college for all” cultural message. Plumbers will have very strong pricing power, given these trends.
Will the future require more knowledge and skill to succeed? Probably, though the deskilling influence of technology will continue to increase. The Common Core is advancing, yet our confidence that anyone can succeed with a high school diploma continues to decline. The IBE study seems to show that the high school graduate is only competent to cook food. We are lucky to have KTEC in the Coeur d’Alene area!
As for the Georgetown predictions that a sea change in demand for post secondary and university degrees is about to occur, I recall this quote: “Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.” — Nils Bohr, Nobel laureate in Physics. If an employer can readily hire a college graduate for the price of a non-college graduate (the underemployment challenge again), why not ask for a university degree? Unfortunately, the often-unsupported degree requirement closes doors to large numbers of people in socio-economic groups unable to afford higher education, thereby barring the door to many able to learn the job. The U.S. Department of Labor has addressed this problem as it relates to equal employment opportunity, though regulations have not yet been made. We face a high human cost for failing to provide good alternatives for high school graduates other than “go to college.”
State policy should implement the nationally recognized WorkKeys Work Readiness Certification. Doing so would immediately establish a transportable post-secondary work-readiness certification. School-based learning policy can be combined with strategies to partner with business and industry to implement the apprenticeship culture found in learning organizations. With employers at the table, we can manage Idaho’s skill needs.
Robert Ketchum is lecturer in Occupational Education, University of Idaho, Coeur d’Alene Center. Previously published in the North Idaho Business Journal
April 1st, 2014
What defines education? Is it registration? Is it tuition? Is it school buildings? No, formal education is defined by three things; 1) structure, 2) sequence, and 3) assessment. Remove any one of those and it is just life, not education. Distance learning has proven that anyone can learn anything from anyone at any time. This is why distance education works, and learning happens every day in the workplace. In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of all work-related learning occurs in the workplace. We also know that learning by doing is a proven strategy. Project-based learning is increasingly being implemented nationwide. The president’s recent State of the Union speech emphasized work-based learning and specifically apprenticeships. Employers benefit by recognizing their role in producing skill and not merely consuming skill.
Employers frequently emphasize the need for soft skills and “trainability.” However, cognitive ability has long been viewed as the most important element in hiring decisions. Now we find cognitive ability is being balanced with a focus on personality characteristics. Can the person do a good job, is now shifting to will the person do a good job? Are these soft skills taught in the classroom? Are classes like “showing up on time” what are needed? Was being on time never taught? Or, is showing up on time a characteristic that must be measured prior to hiring? Does extending adolescence and reducing students’ contact with working adults help develop these critical employability skills? I think not. Schools-to-work activities such as internships, cooperative education and apprenticeships are critical, but too little used in our classroom-focused learning system.
The $50 billion corporate training enterprise focuses to a large extent on soft skill training. There is some evidence that such training has an impact. Will we see more of this kind of training in schools? The belief that cognitive ability (often measured as the capacity to remember) is the most important skill in the workplace has driven the singular focus on academic assessment. This focus on academic knowledge has led to the Common Core. However, workplace analysis continues to point to the ability to locate information being more important than the ability to remember. This is part of the impact of the Internet on the workplace.
Does restricting school-age youth access to working adults better prepare the future workforce? I believe that education has abandoned many proven work-based learning methods to increasingly constrain students to the classroom. This classroom-centric approach undermines the school-to-work transition — a transition that, if done poorly, undermines opportunity for youth.
Politicians and educational administrators love to talk about the need to educate our citizens, and make statements about the mismatch theory that people are not trained for the jobs that are available. Hogwash. What does the U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics say about the rest of this decade? Thirty percent of the projected job openings will require less than a high school diploma and 40 percent, only a high school diploma. Less than 20 percent will require a bachelor’s degree or more. Almost three-quarters will require no more than brief on-the-job training, and 85 percent will require no previous relevant job experience.
It may be an inconvenient and counterintuitive truth that technology does create new jobs, but doesn’t increase the skills needed in most jobs. In fact, technology reduces skill needs among the bulk of existing jobs. Remember when bank teller training programs or grocery cashier training programs were full? Remember when computers required programing by the user in order to be used?
Prediction remains difficult, but what we do know is that the key to getting a job is proximity to work and not pre-employment training. Students isolated in a classroom lack social contacts to secure a job, and 80 percent to 90 percent of the skills needed to succeed in the workplace are developed in the workplace. Youth unemployment can be reduced, and critical skill building opportunities will be created if we will simply expand apprenticeship and work-based learning opportunities.
If we create skills rather than consume skills, the future of American business will be strengthened, and the perceived skill shortage will be resolved.
Previously published in the North Idaho Business Journal
March 1st, 2014
The real minimum wage for the unskilled will always remain $0. Discussions of wages necessarily lead to discussions of the global marketplace. Skills and wages are inseparable, and the labor market pays for high value skills, not simply hard labor. However, the labor market has become worldwide. Unions historically make wage demands, but now such demands often drive work to new regions or nations. Companies must add great value, and win against global competitors, to support high wages.
ACT (the college testing company) has built an extensive job analysis database that clearly demonstrates the link between high skills and high wages. This fact is a motivator for a college education. Unfortunately, college is becoming more unaffordable for middle and lower income families. Efforts to reengineer higher education continue, but substantive change is slow. This situation is compounded with many companies seeking to avoid training costs and looking instead to government to train their employees. These workforce supply factors combine with rapidly retiring experienced “baby boomer” employees, threatening to slow America’s economic engine due to lack of skills. High skills or low wages is the choice we continue to face.
The minimum wage is intended to protect the unskilled, and entry level. Supply and demand rewards the highly skilled. Companies want people who are motivated to learn, the workplace that most skills are developed. We must avoid the Wizard of OZ trap where the lack of a diploma implies no brain. As the Wizard told the Scarecrow: “But they have one thing you haven’t got: A diploma.” Using diploma’s to drive hiring decisions is a waste of talent. Hire for personality and train for skill is a proven formula. Skill development in the workplace raises wages, while the minimum wage will remain $0 for under skilled unable to find work.
Can employers develop and manage their skill needs? Yes, through apprenticeship and structured on-the-job training. In fact, cognitive apprenticeship, when implemented through structured on-the-job training can be used to effectively develop even the most complex technical or management skills. All that is required is an employer prepared to do so. This may seem out of step with an era where academic credentials are seen as necessary to become a productive citizen, but the evidence for work-based learning and cognitive apprenticeship is clear. How is this done? It begins with an analysis of the job so that the knowledge, skills and abilities need for success are clearly understood. Tacit processes must be brought into the open so they can be taught and learned error-free. Business awarded certificates and business-driven skill certifications can be used to address the OZ Scarecrow’s diploma problem.
Wages can rise in companies that add value to products and services by developing employees that not only possess the skills needed to perform the job well, but also have the motivation to do so. Employer commitment to training and development yields workers who are engaged and bring their creativity and motivation to the workplace. There is no substitute for developing and managing the skills; knowledge, and abilities of your team.
December 10th, 2013
Knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA’s) are the DNA of every business. This DNA is managed through investments in training and development. Training is defined as learning that produces a direct return on investment. Development is defined as new learning that is not directly measurable for the company (such as paying for college classes unrelated to an employees job.) We know that a good general education make for a trainable worker. As for jobs requiring a four-year degree, the percentage of jobs requiring a baccalaureate degree has been almost unchanged for fifty years, that being 25 to 30 percent.
For several years, we have seen an often repeated prediction from a university in Washington D.C. that claims that in just a few more years, most jobs will require a college credential. This claim runs afoul of reality. How many jobs do you see advertising a two-year degree, or one-year certificate? In fact, the rapid expansion of technology has “dumbed down” many skilled jobs. The point is, if education alone drove economic development, college towns across the country would be the hubs of the nation’s economy! Companies do, however, seek trainable workers. I’ve discussed in a previous column my view on the often cited “skills gap.” A large local employer once told me that training employees would cause workers to leave for other jobs. A humorous reply could have been, “if you don’t train them they may stay!” Increasingly, without an employer’s commitment to training, skilled workers will be very hard to find. Since 2008 the number of apprentices has dropped by 40% while youth unemployment rises. The decline of business commitment to apprenticeship and training threatens the economic recovery.
Most states offer training money to companies seeking to relocate or expand in their state. These funds can be used to offset the cost of new employee training. This training money can be used for just-in-time training for newly hired workers. In addition, school-based training providers often seek grants or other public funding to create new training programs that sometimes promote a “train them and they will come” approach to economic development. The “train them and they will come” strategy is a disservice for students who take the bait for training programs that anticipate the existence of future jobs for graduates only to prove once again the difficulty of prediction. Training should be delivered just in time when the jobs and workers are ready. Otherwise, supply and demand are out of balance.
The Internet also continues to develop as an electronic performance support system making the ability to locate information much more important that remembering information and work processes. The federal government spent heavily during the 1970’s running pre-employment training programs for jobs that did not exist. Those federal programs were proven ineffective. Washington State just eliminated funding for a range of pre-employment training programs that could not provide any data to prove their effectiveness. Training in advance of proven need has been discredited. Public spending on general pre-employment skills training programs has been flat or declining.
While some US companies fret about the perceived skills gap, several German companies such as BMW and Siemens, have expanded production on the US. How are these German companies finding workers? Apprenticeship is their solution. Apprenticeship (work-based learning) has followed these companies across the Atlantic.
Recent articles in the New York Time and the Washington Post detail how these German companies are addressing their need for skilled employees. The approach taken by these companies is work-based learning. An apprenticeship model can be launched immediately, and will produce outcomes equal to or better than pre-employment training programs. On-the-job training strategies quickly produced a workforce that won World War II. Schools often resist work-based learning as faculty want to develop curriculum. There is no conflict, as good occupational curriculum must be developed from analysis of knowledge, skills and abilities used in companies every day.
Economic development builds on the capacity of entrepreneurs. In Napoleon Hill’s book “Think and Grow Rich,” the point is made that educated people are the cheapest asset an entrepreneur will ever buy. Nonetheless, investment in training and development is critical to managing the knowledge, skill and abilities that support successful companies. Economic development needs to support the business of learning.
Robert G. Ketchum, Ph.D.
November 10th, 2013
Published in the North Idaho Business Journal October 29, 2013
A few years ago, the Coeur d’Alene Idaho Chamber of Commerce offered its first business-oriented trips to China. This first wave of trips was so popular that three Chamber travel groups sold out back to back. This success was reflective not only of individual travel interest, but also desire for business opportunity by Chamber members. What can we do to create opportunity for the next generation of business and professional leaders?
Only 30 percent of Americans have passports. By contrast, U.K. passport holders are at 75 percent and Canada at 60 percent. Some might argue that there is no reason to leave the USA. I suggest that failure to experience international travel will be damaging to the next generation of America’s professionals and entrepreneurs. Preparing for the global economy, parents and teachers are wise to help young people look beyond local, regional, and even national opportunities. A student may be seeking career pathways, or a young entrepreneur may be searching for foreign markets. In either case, all students benefit from expanding international competence and experience.
Traditionally, Americans have felt self-sufficient with minimal need for such travel. Parents are faced with much demand on resources, but yet providing exposure for students to international experiences can open eyes and opportunities. I’ve advised local students regarding opportunity to teach English in Asia as an activity between high school and university. My experiences with North Idaho College’s customized training project in China persuaded me to send my son to study Mandarin in China between high school and college. We all know of China’s growth. The McKinsey’s report, “Preparing for China’s Urban Billion,” projects that by 2025, China will build more than five million buildings, including 50,000 skyscrapers — equal to 10 New York Cities. That is a lot of people, and just one example. These kinds of travel experiences are very impactful, and support expanded opportunity for students.
A few regional teachers volunteer their time and offer student travel tours with organizations such as Smithsonian’s EF Tours. Teachers do this in order to provide travel opportunity for local students. Career experts point to the ever-increasing number of jobs that most young people will have in their working life. International opportunity can open doors to personal and business relationships that can be rewarding financially as well as socially. As it is in education, there is no substitute for first-hand experience. Project-based learning is superior to abstract learning, and structured on-the-job training is superior to simulation. In the same way, while we have Skype and other social media to aide in international experience, there is no substitute for international travel.
To understand and to sell to other countries, we must experience other countries. International travel has a lasting impact on the world-view of young people. International education can provide a powerful influence as to how we interact with people from different economies and cultures. These experiences will deepen commercial relationships in a global market. Traditionally, student travel has always offered benefits to students:
• Increased confidence
• Improved school performance
• Stronger university and job applications
• Improved professional and business opportunities
When advising young people, students are most concerned about employment and economic well-being. The travel benefit accruing to students for career and business opportunity could be critical in an era where we seek to grow our economy and expand international markets for products and services.
by Robert Ketchum
November 9th, 2013
Media stories about America’s “skills gap” have been frequent, and have generally focused on workers. Are workers to blame? Or do we have a failure to train? Assigning blame does not provide a solution to the problem. A Bloomberg editorial (May 17, 2012) discussed technology driven employment change, and the consequent decline in middle class wages. Recommendations for improvement included the college completion agenda, and even more importantly, the need to prepare trainable workers. Specifically, the worker of the future needs to be trained to be trainable.
College completion is critical for those choosing post-secondary education since time spent collecting college credits without completion of a degree is known to waste financial and human resources. That is why college completion is a big issue at all levels of government.
We all know how a college degree can open the door to a good job, but even if the degree helps land the job, the new employee has almost everything to learn. Being trainable only adds value when employers are willing and able to train new workers effectively. In this economy, employers often profess an unwillingness to train in hope someone else will train their employees, whether government or another employer. In other words, some employers intend to hire only experienced workers! We need trainable workers who can adapt to a changing economy, but are often faced with employers who will not bear the cost of employee training. As a result, employers often complain that despite high unemployment, and availability of educated job applicants, they cannot find anyone who knows the jobs they have available. Are we to believe these people are all un-trainable? Of course not! Many of these applicants have bachelors’ degrees, or other levels of post-secondary education. The problem is that employers are often unwilling or unable to provide needed training. A famous quotation from the Training Within Industry Service says it all: “If the trainee hasn’t learned, the trainer hasn’t trained.”
A Wall Street Journal article from October 2102 titled “Why Companies Aren’t Getting the Employees They Need” made an important point; business should stop complaining about the failure of government-funded education to provide America’s skilled workforce. Why are companies convinced that government will or should solve their training needs?
Expecting easy solutions to skill shortages is based on many years of job applications from mobile baby-boomers who already possessed extensive on-the-job training experience. Large cadres of experienced Baby Boomers solved employer training problems by responding to “help wanted” advertisements. American business is faced with the reality that the days of plentiful skilled baby boomers are quickly ending. It is the companies themselves that must now take on the task of employee training.
Foundational skills, including applied math and applied reading, are among the common core of the educational system. But while educational programs can provide those skills, they cannot front-load the 90 percent of job specific skills that make companies competitive and profitable. On-the-job learning (with or without a formal apprenticeship) is where true job skill learning takes place. Many companies have replaced classroom-based employee training with computer-based training. But this solution alone has proved inadequate in replacing on-the-job training (OJT). This gap between training and work is where structured on-the-job training (SOJT) fits.
The term SOJT was coined by Professor Ron Jacobs, OSU, 1995, who defined it as, “A planned process of developing competence on units of work by having an experienced employee train a novice employee at the work setting or a location that closely resembles the work setting.”
I suggest that employers should take responsibility to develop and manage their own knowledge and skills. Training, or its 21st century replacement, Web-based training, must be followed with SOJT if real learning is to be validated and effective.
We read reports describing a mismatch between workforce skills and the economy’s available jobs. A common recommendation is “more funding for community colleges and technical institutes.” I applaud efforts to increase funding for post-secondary education, but given current constraints in state funding, alternatives must be identified. With the price of post-secondary education rising, and the reality of the costs associated with classroom learning limiting access for many in the workforce, we must ask what other solutions exist.
The Urban Institute and Dr. Robert Lerman have been advocating expansion of the often overlooked but widely proven approach to workforce development, the apprenticeship method. Apprenticeship has been proven effective at a lower cost and with effectiveness equivalent to school-based training. The time might be right to embrace apprenticeship once again. According to Lerman writing in his article What to Do about the New Unemployment, “evidence shows that gains from apprenticeship far exceed even the gains for technical training in community colleges.” Apprenticeship and work-based learning can be enhanced with the addition of structured on-the-job training; SOJT produces important learning gains well beyond typical unstructured OJT.
America is on a paper chase. Many employers, lacking any methodology to assess applicant skills, ask for a degree as a default screening method. While more people than ever before hold degrees and certificates, a college credential is not an assurance of capability to do the job. All this is occurring while we tell young people there is no way to win without college, and we watch while students accrue student debt loads that handcuff their future. The US Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) recently posted guidance that employers requiring a high school diploma as an employee screening tool may be violating the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA.) This guidance letter explains that jobs must now be defined based on necessary worker skills rather than the results of a diploma. This determination could have long-range impact in the use of diplomas as blanket screening tools.
Eighty-five to ninety percent of job knowledge is learned on the job; however, policy leaders and businesses themselves have adopted the message that taxpayers must train workers. America developed all the skills needed to ramp up industry to win WWII in a very short time by conducting needed training within industry and on-the-job using the Training Within Industry Service (TWI.) SOJT builds on the TWI approach. Business has access to the tools (SOJT and Registered Apprenticeship) needed to meet their workforce skill needs. When these tools are used, we will begin to resolve the “skills gap.”
By ROBERT G. KETCHUM, Ph.D.