A recent survey suggests 600,000 jobs are unfilled because employers can't find the right workers.

FEBRUARY 27, 2012

Wall Street Journal

By THOMAS A. HEMPHILL AND MARK J. PERRY

Following 12 straight years of declines, U.S. manufacturers added 109,000 workers to their payrolls in 2010 and another 237,000 in 2011. And in January of this year, the number of manufacturing jobs increased by 50,000.

Yet this vibrant sector is being held back—and not by imports. Instead there is a serious labor shortage. In an October 2011 survey of American manufacturers conducted by Deloitte Consulting LLP, respondents reported that 5% of their jobs remained unfilled simply because they could not find workers with the right skills.

That 5% vacancy rate meant that an astounding 600,000 jobs were left unfilled during a period when national unemployment was above 9%.

According to 74% of these manufacturers, work-force shortages or skills deficiencies in production positions such as machinists, craft workers and technicians were keeping them from expanding operations or improving productivity.

A majority of U.S. manufacturing jobs used to involve manual tasks such as basic assembly. But today's industrial workplace has evolved toward a technology-driven factory floor that increasingly emphasizes highly skilled workers.

As Ed Hughes, president and CEO of Gateway Community and Technical College in Kentucky, accurately described the trend, "In the 1980s, U.S. manufacturing was "80% brawn and 20% brains, " but now it's "10% brawn and 90% brains." This new trend, widely known as "advanced manufacturing," leans heavily on computation and software, sensing, networking and automation, and the use of emerging capabilities from the physical and biological sciences.

Faced with the shortage of skilled workers, manufacturers have begun joining with high schools, trade schools, community colleges and universities to train men and women with the right skill sets. In-house apprenticeship programs, a staple of the past, have largely disappeared, according to Dr. Peter Cappelli, director of the Wharton School's Center for Human Resources. They're too costly and time-consuming. Instead, he notes, companies are seeking out "just-in-time" employees who are already technically trained and ready to hit the ground running.

As one solution, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) has endorsed a national Manufacturing Skills Certification System developed and administered by the Manufacturing Institute, a nonprofit affiliated with NAM that operates as part think tank and part solutions center. Seventeen states have national philanthropic funding for deploying the Manufacturing Skills Certification System, and 18 states have grass-roots efforts and strategic partnerships advocating deployment.

In June 2011, President Obama announced a national goal of credentialing 500,000 community-college students with skill certifications aligned to American manufacturers' hiring needs, citing the Manufacturing Skills Certification System as a model.

The Manufacturing Institute has so far developed credentials for advanced manufacturing in Production, Machining & Metalworking, Welding, Technology & Engineering, Automation, Die Casting, Fabrication, Fluid Power, and Distribution & Logistics. It's also developing new certification programs in Aviation & Aerospace, Bioscience and Energy.

Recently, the Manufacturing Institute piloted a "Right Skills Now" accelerated program with the private, nonprofit Dunwoody College of Technology and South Central Community and Technology College, both in Minnesota. It focuses on career training in critical machining skills in a 24-week training period. There's a great need for more such programs around the country.

The private-sector driven Manufacturing Skills Certification System, embracing private-public partnerships with community colleges and trade schools, offers a relatively inexpensive path to meet the human capital demands of U.S. advanced manufacturers.

Output in manufacturing expanded by 4% in 2011, more than twice the 1.7% overall growth rate of the U.S. economy. For manufacturers to continue this remarkable expansion, it's critical that our shortage of skilled workers be addressed.

We cannot afford to let this economic opportunity slip away.

Mr. Hemphill is professor of strategy, innovation and public policy at the University of Michigan, Flint, and Mr. Perry is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

The report's authors, being visionaries, were accustomed to being accused of impracticality, and they took my criticism in stride. They even agreed to let me pick at their reasoning in a conversation on this blog. I exchanged e-mails with Pathways to Prosperity project leaders Robert B. Schwartz, academic dean, and Ronald Ferguson, senior lecturer, both at the education school. The third author of the report was former Business Week journalist Bill Symonds. Here is our exchange:

Mathews: I was very hard on your report last week. When I have these blog conversations, I usually limit each response to 200 words. But let's ignore that for your first response so you can give readers a good idea of where you think I went wrong.

Schwartz: Where to begin? First, the report does not come from a “Blue Ribbon Commission.” It’s the work of an economist, a policy activist and a journalist trying to put a big problem on the table to provoke a serious national conversation.

What’s the problem? The fact that the U.S. is the only industrialized society that relies so heavily on its higher education system to help young people get from the end of compulsory schooling into the workforce with the knowledge and skills to be successful in today’s economy. Despite the fact that nearly all young people now say that they want to go to college and that increasing percentages of high school graduates are in fact enrolling in college, our college completion rate is stuck at about 40 percent. Many organizations are now focused on the challenge of how to increase our college completion rate and have set a very aggressive target of 55 percent by 2025.

But even if this very ambitious improvement goal were to be reached, what is our strategy for getting the other 45 percent of young people the skills and credentials they will need to get launched on a career path that can enable them to earn a family-supporting wage and lead a productive life? This is the big question our report raises, and that you barely acknowledge.

In our search for answers, we draw heavily on two recently published Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) studies that bring important international evidence and experience to bear on the problem we cite, but you never even acknowledge this major section of our report. We point out that throughout Northern Europe from the age of 16 between 40 and 70 percent of young people enroll in programs that combine classroom and workplace learning, have significant employer involvement, and prepare students for careers in a wide range of occupations, not just the traditional trades. While some of these countries, most notably Germany and Switzerland, continue to track youngsters as early as middle school, most other countries we mention have moved away from tracking and leave it to students and their families to choose the pathway that makes most sense for them. We clearly indicate that this latter model is the one we would recommend for the U.S. Again, you make no mention of the international experience we invoke in the report.

You then go on to discuss our three very broad recommendations. (I should point out that we made a very explicit decision not to offer up a detailed set of recommendations, mainly because we wanted readers to focus on the problem and to use the report as a springboard for public discussion). You reserve most of your fire for our call for increased employer involvement and our call for a more explicit social compact between adult society and its young people. These recommendations follow directly on our chapter called “Lessons from Abroad,” but since you chose not to reference that chapter, your readers would have no way of knowing that roughly a quarter of all employers in Germany and Switzerland participate in these work-and-learning programs, and that there are several countries we invoke in the report that have quite explicit youth entitlement or guarantee programs. You say we have wandered into fantasyland, that such social compacts have never happened before.

Does it count that the European Union is about to adopt (maybe already has adopted) a youth guarantee ensuring a job, an apprenticeship or another education option for every young person up to the age of 25 within six months of leaving school or a job? On the employer issue, we cite several examples (see p. 32) of U.S. programs that have managed to engage employers at scale, and I hope you don’t mind my reminding you that earlier in my career I was the director of The Boston Compact, a social contract between the city’s employer community and its young people that spread to several other cities.

There is much to debate and argue about in this report, including the relevance of international experience to the U.S. context. But to have that debate you at least have to give your readers an accurate description of the argument of the report, and the facts and evidence the report marshals to support that argument. To deride the report as coming from a group of out-of-touch academics who live in a fantasy world is to dismiss the decades of real-world experience that Ron Ferguson and I bring to this project.

Mathews: Thanks so much for this. As you said many times in the report, Europe is not America. What evidence do you have in this country that local businesses would be willing, or even able, to accept the huge load of new interns from the local schools that your plan would generate? The good people from Big Picture Learning who participated in your report preparations demand very little from their local business communities, since they have just a few small schools.

Schwartz: I agree that this is a major challenge. Our report offers a few examples of secondary school programs that have been able to engage employers at scale, most notably the National Academy Foundation, which has 2500 employers providing paid internships to its 50,000 students in 500 academies in 41 states.

In the long run, however, it will probably be more feasible in the U.S. to build pathways that begin by linking employers and community colleges and then map backward to connect with high schools. Employers in search of skilled workers are accustomed to working with their community colleges in programs in high-demand fields, and despite the evidence from Europe, it is a tough sell in the U.S. to convince employers that high school students can actually add value to the bottom line of the company. Employer-led programs that span grades nine through 14, like IBM's new program with the N.Y. city schools and City University of New York to prepare IT workers, represent a promising U.S. adaptation of the European model.

Mathews: I see a tension between two points the report makes often: We need different pathways for 11th- and 12th-graders, but we also need to build their inadequate academic skills. Diverting them into vocational classes seems to take time from reading, writing and math. I know some experts SAY the vocational path can augment academic instruction, but I have never seen any studies confirming that. What do you have to assure us that the diversion to some vocational courses won't have the same effect it had for kids in our generation -- dumbing down high school?

Ferguson: For evidence that vocational training can produce better results than standard high school curricula, see the MDRC evaluation of Career Academies. Also consider Whittier Vocational Technical High School. I noticed a couple years ago that its reading and math score gains from eighth to 10th grade were among the best in Massachusetts. I asked why. Teachers reported that they align academic and vocational instruction, use double-period English and math instruction even during weeks when coursework focuses on vocational skills, and target particular students for extra support. (See the video.) 

The principal said, “Students can leave here at 18 years of age, and they can go to college, or they can go to a job, or they can go on for more training in their technical area. They just have so many more opportunities.” This is just one example. It’s not magic. Regional leaders can collaborate to build systems that work with employers on programs and materials, prepare teachers, monitor implementation and enforce accountability for high standards. As a society, we have a choice to try, nor not. But my co-authors and I believe that the need to respond in a major way is truly urgent.

Mathews: But don't most of the career academies and other programs you cite benefit from being at least mildly selective, and small compared to the new paths you envision?

Ferguson: Yes, they are, as you say, "at least mildly" selective. But only mildly. The number of youth who could be served by a more ambitious system is certainly orders of magnitude greater than the number currently served. If we were to notify children as early as the fifth grade that their high school options could depend upon their academic performance, that might inspire students and the adults who care about them to prepare more carefully.

I got straight C's in eighth grade because I saw absolutely no reason to work hard in junior high! If basic reading and math skills were touted as requirements for participation in interesting career tracks in high school, that could be a major new incentive for middle-schoolers. We need to begin as early as fifth grade to expose children to images of "possible selves" and to give them a sense of what's required to move along the various alternative pathways. Employers can help in age-appropriate ways. The strategy has to start before high school. But even then, not all will be prepared by ninth grade. We will always need arrangements for late bloomers. Those arrangements, too, should blend academics with preparation for the world of work.

Mathews: So how do you keep the standards up in that way? We have both seen plenty of high school-based academies who said they would require certain grade point averages, but under community pressure let everybody in and didn't try to teach them much. And how would we pay for this transformation of high school with state and federal budgets in crisis?

Schwartz: As you suggest, quality control is a serious problem, but programs that have been at this for a while, like the National Academy Foundation and High Schools That Work, have developed strategies to address the quality challenge. One reason we think it is critical to engage employers from the outset is that they will be the ultimate enforcers of standards. If schools send students into the workplace for internships or other forms of work-based learning who cannot cut it, the programs will be forced to improve or go out of business.

You're right, of course, to point out that the pressure on state and district budgets makes this a difficult time to propose any new innovation. But a major lesson from Europe is that it is the enlightened self-interest of employers that drives the creation of strong vocational education systems.Given the increasingly untenable mismatch between the skills employers are demanding and the qualifications of those seeking work, the time may be right to build a U.S. version of the public/private cost-sharing "social partnerships" at the state and local level that have enabled these systems to flourish in Europe,

Mathews: You are filling in a lot of blanks for me. Thank you. Here is one more. If we persuade businesses to be, as you say, "the ultimate enforcers of the standards" on such a large scale, will that not mean significant friction with the local educational establishment, particularly teacher unions? I can see the angry slogans at school board meetings: "Schools for Kids, Not for Profits." I don't know enough about Europe to say if deep suspicion of business motives affects their politics, but I know it does ours.

Schwartz: These programs work in Europe when they are the product of a genuine collaboration among leaders from business, labor, government and education. The social partnerships I mentioned in my last entry didn’t develop overnight. In countries like Switzerland and Germany, they evolved over generations and are now deeply embedded in the culture.

Can we overcome the historic distrust between education and business that has too often gotten in the way of building stronger vocational pathways for young people in the U.S.? This is an open question, but our view is that the data we present create a compelling case for leaders across the sectors to come together to address the challenges we outline in the report.

As of last week we have received invitations from 11 states to speak at leadership gatherings of educators, business people and governmental officials. This suggests that, despite all of the implementation questions and challenges you raise, there is a recognition that neither students nor employers are as well-served as they should be by the path we are on, and that it may be time to look outside our borders for ideas about how we might get a much larger fraction of our young people well-launched on a career path by their early 20s.

Mathews: Thanks to you both. I hope you will keep this blog in touch with any significant progress being made toward your goal.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/class-struggle/2011/02/pathway_to_prosperity_authors.html?referrer=emaillink

The second is a report released at an American Youth Policy Forum in Washington D.C. The report, Pathways to Prosperity is the result of an extensive study of our national failure to prepare millions of young people to lead successful lives as adults, despite decades of efforts to reform education and billions of dollars of expenditures. Evidence of this failure is everywhere: 

·         in the dropout epidemic that plagues our high schools and colleges;

·         in the roughly half of our young people who reach their mid-20s without earning a postsecondary degree or industry-recognized credential;

·         and in teen and young adult employment rates not seen since the Great Depression.

Pathways to Prosperity, a new report from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, argues that our national strategy for education and youth development has been too narrowly focused on an academic, classroom-based approach. Meanwhile, many other advanced industrial nations are succeeding with a broader, more holistic approach that places greater emphasis on career and technical education and work-based learning. Pathways to Prosperity contends that in order to regain the educational leadership we held for more than a century, the United States must build a more comprehensive network of pathways to serve youth in high school and beyond. To read more, click here.

Associated Press
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/10/09/3091310/new-digs-add-luster-to-new-san.html#ixzz11tnJaTY8

Low enrollment, out-of-date facilities and sagging test scores are remnants of what school officials say was part of New San Juan High school's old reputation.

With more than $27 million invested in renovating its career pathways facilities, students of the recently renamed Citrus Heights campus began the school year in a space bigger than a typical classroom.

There are two new buildings: a 10,512-square-foot culinary arts facility and a 9,685-square-foot technology wing. These include areas that mimic what students would encounter in the real world – a restaurant with a spacious dining area, a chef's-style kitchen and a machine shop filled with cars.

"Presentation is half the battle," said automotive technology teacher Jason Keith. "If you have nice facilities to teach in, students generally respond better."

Keith recalled working last year in a 1950s-era building with barn-style doors that weren't much fun to crack open. Now he says electric roll-ups make it easier for students to move around the shop and work on the cars.

All of the school's roughly 613 students choose a career pathway at the end of freshman year. They have five choices: transportation technology and mobile electronics; engineering; construction technology; culinary arts; and media production.

Senior Samantha Zechlin said she chose culinary arts because she dreams of opening her own cafe or bistro one day. She's crossing her fingers that she'll get accepted into Johnson & Wales University in Denver.

Three years ago, the program was in two classrooms where the kitchen and restaurant area weren't even separated, she said.

"It's amazing because we came from really small kitchens and very tight corners to where you can actually move around," said Zechlin.

Junior William Krasnodemsky, who chose construction technology, said he wants to pursue a career in architecture or engineering.

"It helps me understand how things are built," he said. "This is the most hands-on course I have."

In his free time, Krasnodemsky also builds longboards and skateboards and sells them to his friends for $45 apiece.

Funding for the buildings' construction came from Measure J, a bond initiative passed by San Juan Unified School District voters in 2002, and state grants.

A $10 million art media production studio is expected to be completed in the fall of 2011.

While the new buildings adds luster to the aging Spanish Colonial-style campus, school officials hope that the career pathways program will also create more meaningful connections to the school's curriculum beyond graduation.

"Those skill sets are going to be much closer to what industry they're moving into," said Paula Tarpenning, the school's director of college/career and adult education. "When you had the classroom, we were very limited in what students could produce."

Principal Tony Oddo said the new buildings are part of the plan to improve the school's reputation, and he said in the past year that they've made some progress.

Academic Performance Index scores jumped 57 points from a base score of 602 in 2009. to 659. School enrollment also is up slightly from the end of last year.

"We've hit our trough," he said. "We're now on the upswing."

This hearing examined the national security implications of U.S. manufacturing policy, with a focus on the security challenges posed by a shrinking defense industrial base and domestic supply chain.

Manufacturing – including the defense industrial base – currently accounts for 12 percent of U.S Gross Domestic Product and 10 percent of national employment. Yet increasingly, the defense industry faces the proliferation of foreign-made and counterfeit parts, outdated technology, and a depleted manufacturing workforce.

This hearing reviewed recent scholarship and research on the challenges facing U.S. manufacturing and the implications for U.S. national security. Witnesses were also asked to offer their recommendations to improve U.S. manufacturing policy in order to strengthen and protect national defense.

Opinion: We Need More Skilled Workers

John Ratzenberger

Special to AOL News

John Ratzenberger is an actor, entrepreneur and advocate for skilled workers.

(Sept. 2, 2010) -- When America gave up its position as the producer-in-chief and became the consumer-in-chief, "essential skilled workers" became dirty words in our lexicon.

The cultural shift is fast producing an "industrial tsunami" that threatens our economy and way of life. Ironically enough, we're facing a crisis shortage of skilled workers at a time of dramatically high unemployment.

We must re-connect this disconnect or face the consequences. America works when Americans are working.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 25 percent of the working population will reach retirement age by 2012, resulting in a potential shortage of nearly 10 million skilled workers. This heightens the price our nation is paying for dismantling so many in-school vocational training programs during the past few decades.

The current shortage already sharply reduces the growth of U.S. gross domestic product, contributing to our overall economic problem. America's infrastructure is falling apart before our eyes. Municipal water and sewer systems are failing, and more bridges are unsafe to cross. Yet the nationwide shortfall of more than 500,000 welders is causing already-funded repair projects to be canceled or delayed.

Essential skilled workers are heroes. Without them, America grinds to a halt. But there are national security implications to this skilled worker gap, too. The ongoing demand for U.S.-manufactured military parts and hardware -- from boots to mother boards -- require domestic manufacturing operations. Even now, critical manufacturing has been moved off-shore as a stop-gap measure.

We simply can't "outsource" our national defense!

Along with Emmy Award-winning producer Craig Haffner and the Foundation for Fair Civil Justice, I am currently in pre-production with a new documentary, "Industrial Tsunami," whose purpose is to wake up Americans to the shortage of skilled workers that threatens the existence of companies and entire industries.

We must develop short- and long-range solutions to this crisis, starting with expanding vocational training opportunities and restoring dignity and pride in America's skilled workers.

We will explore the negative media images of skilled workers, as well as current initiatives at the national and local levels to address this crisis.

Equally important, we will promote the concept that essential skilled work is noble, is useful and creates the independent mindset and self-confidence in the individual that has resonated throughout our nation's history -- and can rebuild America with a solid foundation once again.

John Ratzenberger is an actor, entrepreneur and advocate for vocational training and skilled workers. He is in pre-production on a new documentary, "Industrial Tsunami," due in early 2011.