The US Workforce Competitive Advantage Has Declined For Decades – Not for Lack of Resources, Effort or Base Talent, But For Strategy

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.

The United States has, by objective measures, not done a “world-class” job of developing the new workers it needs. True, it is difficult to develop accurate core skill courses meant to reflect the jobs of today and the future when by the time these programs are ready and students ready to graduate, entire industries have already moved these jobs elsewhere offshore. But institutions have not done a good job of preparing for the future that is most likely, not the one they want to create, either.

Educational policies of the 1980’s and 1990’s eliminated “vocational” training in high schools to focus on college preparation, assuming everyone was suited and planning for college. College-educated officials went with what they knew and understood. But they could not agree on strategy, complicating matters further, which lead to a perpetual debate on how best to prepare students for college. This yielded versions of standardized tests and a massive test preparation industry.

In the 1990’s an attempt was made to return, somewhat, to developing skills that industries said they needed, and the United States Departments or Labor and Education’s National Skill Standards programs were born. I participated in developing skill standards and finding ways to integrate standards into worker training, since education could only take these so far. But it became clear, to me, that standardizing skills for a rapidly evolving industry using old fashioned tools posed more challenges for the employer, showed little return and standards eroded rather quickly with no defined responsibility or budget to maintain and revalidate them.

Meanwhile, the average United States SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) test scores between 2000 and 2016 showed a slight decline, but certainly no improvement through this period. After adjustments to scoring algorithms didn’t improve scores, it was decided in 2016 that the SAT test again needed to be re-designed. As with so many instances in the U.S. when statistics do not show the results expected, some lean toward finding a way to show improvement without making improvements.

When these efforts did not appear to solve the college preparation issues or meet the needs of employers, an effort grew to address “skills employers say they need.” Today, STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) learning in K-12 is education’s focus – things that everyone expected were taught in K-12 anyway. But both these efforts still leave the employer to develop the higher order skills and task mastery they need even if the employer does not, or wishes not to, recognize this requirement. Billions of dollars were spent in the last 4 decades and generations of workers completed these programs, yet workforce development still seems in its infancy.

How is the US doing compared to world’s developed and developing countries? The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD)  published the results of their 2015 PISA tests  and it shows the U.S. has a lot of work ahead of it. In reading, the U.S. rank rose in 2012 to 28th (against 65 countries) then declined to 35th in 2015 – against 72 countries with 540,000 participants representing around 30 million 15 year old students worldwide. This is below the PISA average. In reading, the U.S. showed relatively no improvement in math and science since 2012, ranked 24th and and 25th respectively – but performed above the average.

In 1st place in all three categories in 2015 was Singapore. Hong Kong took second in Math and Reading, and Japan was 2nd in Science. Surprisingly, countries such as Viet Nam scored ahead of the U.S. in Math and Science, and was slightly behind the U.S. in Reading. “Surprisingly” in the comparative size of budgets, per capita spending, institutional strength and technology in the classroom.

The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a worldwide study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to evaluate the educational systems of member and non-member nations by measuring 15-year-old school pupils’ scholastic performance on mathematics, science, and reading. First administered in 2000, the test has since been repeated every three years. Its aim is to provide comparable data with a view to enabling countries to improve their education policies and outcomes. It measures problem solving and cognition and is increasingly used in the process of education policy making at both national and international levels.

According to the OECD, “Until the 1990s, few European countries used national tests. In the 1990s, ten countries / regions introduced standardised assessment, and since the early 2000s, ten more followed suit. By 2009, only five European education systems had no national student assessments.”

Looking back to 2009 PISA scores, out of 65 countries responding, the U.S. ranked 33rd in reading, 15th in math and 31st in science. While the U.S. showed improvement in math, it continued its decline in reading and science scores, which sounds counter-intuitive since understanding science requires technical reading and higher order math.

Comparatively, in the 2000 PISA results the U.S. ranked 18th in math, 15th in reading and 14th and 14th in science out of 31 countries reporting. Some would say that slide in ranking between 2000 – 2009 for math and science was due to the addition of 34 more countries, but it doesn’t say much for the strength of the U.S. results prior to 2000 vis-à-vis the world – those participating or not.

Nevertheless, the results speak for themselves. By many cohort measures, as well as anecdotal measures, no one can deny that the U.S. has slipped behind. An estimated 60% of community college students need remedial learning (for what should have been learned in K-12) before they can start the community college curriculum. This has been a unheeded warning sign that continues to drain school budgets and demoralizes students from continuing their education.

No doubt economic and social factors affect test results. Since 2008, some point out the damaging affects of the Crash of 2008 and the resultant disruption, dislocation, and in some cases dissolution, of the family. However, the Crash rippled across the world and other developed countries seemed to weather the storm much better than the U.S. Why is that? Perhaps their social and economic safety nets were better able to insulate more student-age citizens from the upheaval.

In 2015, compared by high school graduation rates,  the U.S. was ranked 24th with 83%; Russia is 3rd with 98%. In 2009, the U.S. graduation rate was 75.5 so this appears to be an area continuing to improve.

Whether these factors are causes or symptoms, there has been a decline in the fabric of the workforce and the society. The OECD collects data and compares outcomes for other social and economic areas. Of the countries sharing data, in 2015 the US ranks 3rd highest in income inequality, behind Chile and Mexico, where poverty is more share and the concentration of wealth less prevalent. With Relative Income Poverty at 16.8%, the U.S. ranks behind all of the Western European Socialist economies but better than Turkey at 17.3% and Israel at 19.5%. The US poverty rate for 0-17 year olds is 19.9%, 18-25 year olds 18.4%, 18-64 year olds (working age) 14.8% and 65- (retirement age) 20.9%.

Sadly, the U.S. is number 1 in obesity among men and women.

Even though the U.S outspends the other measured countries in healthcare, the U.S. also ranks behind most countries on many measures of health outcomes, quality, and efficiency – 11th overall out of 11 western democratic countries compared.

According to a ProPublica/NPR investigative report, the US “Has The Worst Rate Of Maternal Deaths In The Developed World” at 26.4 deaths of the mother out of 1000 versus the next highest, the United Kingdom at 9.2. Finland was the lowest at 3.8.

According to Our World, Our Data the U.S. estimated rate of homelessness hasn’t decreased much since 2007, the year before the Crash of 2008.  Approximately 550,000 thousand are estimated to be homeless; 200,000 of those without shelter. Since 2010, countries such as Great Britain have seen their homeless rates rise, but not as high since their countries have broader social programs in place.

All of the measures are interrelated. It is not that jobs are developed here so they can moved “over there,” but the net effect is they are. Someone inspired to enter a 2 or 4 year training program thinking there will be jobs when they graduate were given hope and a sense of purpose. When they find there are no longer jobs in their field, they leave college often drowning in student loan debt that prevents them from getting traction. Student loan debt in the U.S. has risen to $1.5 trillion dollars in 2018.

A strong educational foundation tends to yield higher wages and more fulfilling careers. Gainful employment affects more than just income. Low or declining real wages yields a low and declining socio-economic outcomes. Even those who were educated enough, assertive enough and fortunate enough to build a career and sustainable lifestyle are affected when not “all boats rise” or only some capsize through no fault of their own. We cannot escape the society we collectively build.

All this points to the fact the employers need, without a doubt, to be part of the workforce development equation. What other evidence is needed…although there is plenty? While education is doing its part to improve the core knowledge and skill foundation of future workers, employers can no longer sit on the sidelines and let educational institutions that have been so far unable to deliver systemic improvements to “take another shot at it.” Employers must roll up their sleeves and open pocketbooks to make the right investment to ensure at least their organization gets the workers and performance levels they need. Collectively, the effort may just iron out the wrinkles left by an educational system that will need a lot of overhaul before it ranks well against the other exporting countries.

And there are millions of workers who were left behind, not in school, who could be productive and efficient workers for any employer that has a deliberate structured on-the-job training program in place. With a little of investment in time and resources the employer can accommodate workers of any level of pre-hire education and experience and still develop workers capable of mastering all the tasks of the job for which they were hired.

The employer wins, the worker wins and the society we live in improves. It will take generations to return to a time before we screwed things up; the rate of improvement dependent only on our determination.

Apprenticeships are a good thing, but without structured on-the-job raining they are little more than bringing the classroom onto the factory floor. Bad experiences with apprenticeships – too much effort and resources for too little detectable return – are why employers remain reluctant to participate in significant numbers.

Whether it is due to flawed policies influenced by special interests, economic factors that impair policies from taking shape, or both, the U.S. has got to get a handle on what it is trying to accomplish in preparing students for work. It needs to refocus its efforts, be honest with itself and make improvements free from politics and special interests. In the meantime, the employer is on its own to develop the workers it needs to perform the tasks required of its unique business model.

Proactive Technologies works with employers, helping by setting up task-based structured on-the-job training (based on a thorough job/task analysis) and by providing technical implementation support so the employer can focus on business. Proactive Technologies partners with community colleges, career centers, technical colleges, universities, workforce development organizations and economic development agencies to build a regional workforce development system that utilizes all available related technical instruction providers (with relevant content) in concert with employer-specific structured on-the-job training. Related technical instruction or pre-hire development is pointless without an employer ready and able to transition the student to worker status and to bridge the learning-to-training gap.

If you would like to know how Proactive Technologies’ structured on-the-job training system approach might work at your firm, or your region, contact a Proactive Technologies representative today to schedule a GoToMeeting videoconference briefing to your computer. This can followed up with an onsite presentation for you and your colleagues. A 13-minute promo briefing is available at the Proactive Technologies website and provides an overview to get you started and to help you explain it to your staff.