Like many baby boomers in the ‘60s, I had to take shop classes in junior high and high school.  Wood shop, metal shop, and mechanical drafting were a mandatory part of the curriculum.  

But even in the late ‘60s, the focus of education was to prepare for college.  My buddies who worked on their cars after school and wanted to be auto mechanics?  They were just out of luck when it came to support for a non-academic career track.  (And never mind the female students that might have had an interest in the trades).

Fast forward to 2024, and the lack of alternative career pathways in education is obvious. We have philosophy majors driving for Uber, while construction and manufacturing are desperately trying to replace a workforce that is losing much of the tribal knowledge from my retiring generation. It has become clear that we are failing as a nation in setting up the future workforce for success, for young people who are not college bound.

It is slowly getting better — I am seeing more teachers (particularly in high school) that are championing career exploration for tech and trades.  But within much of education and state/local government, we are still stuck in our old paradigms and bias about trade/tech careers.  Yet given the declining enrollment rates in colleges (particularly with young men), it seems obvious that a new standard is needed.

Many of us believe that one of the keys to changing this narrative is to begin exposure to these career paths much earlier for our students.  States like Ohio are starting this in elementary school, and they are perennial powerhouses in manufacturing.  In countries like Germany, students can begin formal apprenticeships effectively while a junior in high school.  (I’d note that trades are highly respected as career choices in that country…)

We do have some great examples of best practices around the country for trade pathways (Ohio and Michigan are a few).  But many other states, including those in the Northwest USA, are still struggling to put a focused, coherent trade/tech K-12 program together at a state level.  Why? 

I believe that the makeup of the policy groups might provide a clue.  I have taken part in a few of these groups, and they are overwhelmingly comprised of academic stakeholders, with an occasional leader from business.  The conversations often start to become inward facing about how to meet credit and curriculum requirements, to which I would say “Where is the focus on delivering students who have the skill sets that we need in manufacturing?”  

In truth, we can have a balance between degreed and trade/tech careers in our schools.  Foundational skills in manufacturing provide an incredible way to make STEM education relevant, and hands-on learning is the optimum way for many people to learn versus a classroom environment.

So — what can we do as industry?  

• We can work through non-profit industry groups to get into elementary, junior high and high schools.  
• We can find those teachers in our local schools who have a passion for manufacturing and will be our champions, and we can support the heck out of them.
• We can show up at school boards and talk to academic leadership about providing alternative career training.  
• We can offer to talk to student classes and give tours of our factories, so that students can truly see and appreciate the sophistication and interesting challenges that they will face within manufacturing. 
• And as industry leaders, we can — and should — be forceful about having a voice for a better balance between academic and working trade career training.

If we do not speak out and invest our time in this effort, we have no right to complain about a lack of talent.  It’s time to roll up our sleeves and get to work.