STEM Programs are Good, But No Substitute for Employer-Delivered Structured On-The-Job Training

by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.

STEM learning is all the buzz these days. From coast-to-coast, high schools, career centers and community colleges are trumpeting the promise of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math to employers and future workers. Some see this as the cure-all to the pervasive and persistent “skills gap” dilemma. Some emphasize that STEM merely represents a reversal of the policies in the 1990’s that emphasized preparation for college over preparation for work and society (some even say History and Civics should have been left in the curricula as well). This realignment with industry will take years to bear fruit and to bring workforce preparation back to where it was before the decision was made to change focus…that is if politics doesn’t take it off course again before it can produce.

While STEM represents a good start at building a better foundation upon which career paths can be developed, it is important to keep it in perspective and not oversell the promise as often happens. It is understandable that educational institutions who are delivering the STEM classes are enthusiastically marketing it as the cure, but care should be taken not to over-market the product and crowd out other necessary components of proper and effective worker training that make it possible to obtain and retain a job with an employer in need. Too much focus on building the foundation can lead to lost years for a potential worker, lost opportunity for an employer, and lost support for workforce development as interest and belief wanes.

This movement is reminiscent of the 1990’s and early 2000’s single-mindedness of educational institutions and states that assessments were the cure for deficient workforce skills. As with core skills represented by STEM, assessments are only on part of a workforce development process. In this case, it was to identify skill deficiencies. Solutions like this are not meant to be delivered randomly out of sequence, nor are they meant to the focal point of all available resources and efforts.

Certainly, a logical process starts with developing the core skills. This is the foundation upon which the higher order core skills can be developed and eventually task-based skills (that only the employer can deliver) are developed. Assessments can be used either prior to developing core skills to understand which STEM areas need emphasis, or after core skill development and prior to employment to see if any STEM areas were missed or need additional remediation. But keep in mind these STEM areas selected are industry-general, not employer-specific. If an assessment was designed based on a thorough job/task analysis for a specific employer, it can further screen and qualify candidates for training and mastery of tasks a company needs performed

However, the process doesn’t, and shouldn’t, end there. Each step of a workforce development process should never be considered the end of the journey; only one rung of a ladder. Just because one stage has a higher platform, bigger megaphone and, therefore, access to state and federal funds to sweeten their offer (while overstating their significance) shouldn’t cloud any employer’s vision of what they need this process to produce. And workforce development efforts compensating for falling short of an effective outcome by leading STEM graduates to an “apprenticeship” that looks very much like a 2-year associates degree program – with just an employer’s name attached to lend plausibility – doesn’t seem like a departure from the past at all; just different curtains on the same window.

Employer’s who think that putting all hopes on the STEM graduates to find the skilled workers they need will be grossly disappointed. Worse yet, the time and resources spent on the effort may not have been utilized wisely, as with the years lost by the individual who wants and needs to work. Bad history does not have to repeat itself…again and again.

Employers, who routinely think in terms of systems, have to reevaluate their approach to worker development from a pragmatic standpoint. So much is at stake – not just for the worker and the community, but for the operational effectiveness of the company, as well. It is worth the introspection.

Who has the experts to train workers to the employer’s exact need, the equipment upon which to train, the environment in which to learn and the most at stake if the process succeeds or fails? The employer. So it stands to reason the employer has to take a sustained, accurate and active role in each worker’s development or, at a minimum, expect to reap an inadequate return on worker investment; or, at a maximum, suffer a disruption in operations. The schools, government, the community or media have no stake in this such as the employer, and if the effort fails have no accountability like the employer.

By the employer simply taking control of the process – not just with chats over donuts and coffee, but by rolling up the sleeves and doing what needs to be done – every worker development outcome can be assured at a consistently high level. The surest way to take control is by building an employer-specific structured on-the-job training infrastructure. Similar to the last runner in a relay, it is not the time to fumble the baton.

By defining the expert you want to replicate, then developing the tools to make sure the process works and repeats, the employer can be ready to take any candidate that STEM programs produce, and any skilled workers released to the workforce and who are available for pickup. There are so many other benefits that a structured on-the-job training system can unleash on top of the obvious, there is little reason not to find out more and consider the impact it could have on your organization.

Without a structured on-the-job training program in place, it doesn’t matter how many STEM graduates or apprentices are lead to your doorstep, you won’t have the tools in place to take them the rest of the way. And if too many employers slide in with the other employers who are indifferent to to seriousness of the challenge, relying on the seemingly (by shear numbers alone) credible, but in reality solutions that are being hyped more than proven, we will again have lost a generation of workers and society and the economy will pay the price.

It is long past the time to look at the workforce development and skills gap problem pragmatically. There is no better time to change course if you feel the path you have been on has not landed you where you were expecting. Contact a Proactive Technologies, Inc. representative today to find out more. The discussion may at least give you more food for thought.