For many training is the answer to the challenges raised in my last two posts: non college educated men falling behind and the gap between the skills needed for today’s factory jobs and the skills of applicants for those jobs. Both are consequences of the new reality that more and more of the work that required primarily muscle is now either done overseas or by machines. But the country  – not just Michigan – does not have a very good record of taking people who have done lower skilled jobs and preparing them at scale for jobs that require higher skills. And an even worse track record with those who have been chronically unemployed, no matter how strong the economy.

It is unrealistic to ask training institutions to solve all the challenges of the economy. Training will not lead to jobs that don’t exist. So when the macro economy is weak holding training institutions accountable for placements is not fair. What is fair is holding them accountable for whether their students have gained the skills needed to get jobs – particularly decent paying jobs – when the economy starts to grow again. Nor can training institutions overcome the resistance of many to get training. Whether its not accepting the need to learn new skills, not wanting to participate in training or needing work now so one doesn’t have the time to get new skills there are all sorts of reasons adults don’t sign up for training.

But for those who do enroll for addition training, the system needs to do better. As we have written before, far too many participants don’t get the skills they need. Far too many end up in remedial programming and never make it to classes where they can learn new occupational skills. And many who do make it to occupational training, don’t get the skills/credentials needed to get employed in the occupation.

As the Detroit News pointed out the problem is particularly acute for many private adult training institutions.  The privates are far more expensive for taxpayers and students with a worse track record of student success compared to community colleges.  Quite troubling!

Figuring out how to get the system to get better student outcomes should be a priority. It is about more than just adequate funding for training. We need to admit that we don’t really know how to get better outcomes at scale and encourage lots of experimentation combined with clear outcome standards.

At the very time that the economy is demanding more college grads, the college attainment rate is going down. Not good news either for the economic prospects of the Millennials or the American economy. The 25-34 year olds have a higher proportion that have some college, but no degree. So more are going to college, but fewer are graduating. We need to change that.

I wrote a series of previous posts on the need to demand of higher eduction the same kind of improved outcomes that we have of k-12 education. Those standards, combined with funding following the student, have helped create new schools are getting student outcomes that were thought impossible a decade ago.

One of the innovations that a few new high schools have adopted is taking responsibility for the graduates while they are in college. Two of them – including Ferndale’s University High School  which I am involved with – have hired college success advisers. A coach/counsellor that follows the student from high school to college. As the Free Press noted so far the advisers are helping get college retention rates that are far above that for students from urban high schools. (The article also includes a list of the graduation rates from our public universities.Take a look. Pretty depressing!)

As the article notes we are so pleased with the results we are going to require all the new high schools funded by Michigan Future Schools to have a college success adviser. But ultimately the only way these kind of supports can be provided at scale is when colleges and universities provide these services. The advisers provide the kind of support that universities provide to their scholarship athletes. The question we need to ask our colleges and universities is why aren’t they at least experimenting with this kind of support system for all students as a way of boosting graduation rates.

The State Journal piece goes through our five point agenda and demonstrates how on each the state has been moving in the opposite direction. From supporting higher education to creating welcoming, vibrant places where mobile talent wants to live to developing new leadership that is about moving to the future rather than trying to recreate the past Melot argues that we have come up short.  Worth reading!

The Gazette editorial is just as right on. It makes the case, using data from our report, that for Michigan to be prosperous again central cities matter – particularly Detroit. As they write: “It’s important for residents here and across Michigan to understand that investment in our core cities, east and west, is an investment in a prosperous future for all of us in the years to come.” Central cities – as too many in Michigan believe – are not a part of a long gone past, but of current and future success. That’s because mobile young talent increasingly is concentrating in vibrant central cities of the nation’s big metros. Where they choose to live and work will go a long way in determining which states and regions are prosperous in the future and which are not.

1. David  Olive wrote a fascinating column for the Toronto Star on Detroit as a model. That’s right a model for Toronto. His point: Detroit has recognized it has to change to prosper and is beginning to do the things necessary to position itself for future success. Boy what a different take on Detroit than we get here in Michigan where everything is about its presumed permanent collapse.

2. Our new report will once again chronicle the accelerating trend towards a knowledge-based economy. The NY Times has an important article on the costs to many of that transition. Folks who have lost a good-paying job permanently. As they write: “For the last two years, the weak economy has provided an opportunity for employers to do what they would have done anyway: dismiss millions of people — like file clerks, ticket agents and autoworkers — who were displaced by technological advances and international trade.” The article goes on to chronicle the consequences of occupations disappearing. The loss in standard of living and the inadequacies of our support system to help people prepare for new occupations.

3. The Times also has a terrific magazine article on school reform in the Obama Administration. How the President has courageously taken on the education establishment – including teachers unions – to get big changes in how schools are operated. It’s a fascinating read on the political power of a movement built around providing largely poor urban kids with a quality education. Quite encouraging!

4. Finally in this season of college graduation a couple of articles that challenge the conventional wisdom that college students leave Michigan because there are no jobs. Both were written during the current downturn. One from the Times on Iowa, which at that point had labor shortages. Employers having trouble filling jobs that require a four-year degree. The other from the Wall Street Journal on Portland, Oregon with the opposite characteristic. High unemployment and yet a magnet for young professionals. The evidence is clear quality of place is an important consideration for graduates as they choose where to live and work after college. If jobs mattered most, college grads would be flocking to Iowa, not Portland. They aren’t!

Their framework for action can be found here. Worth reading and getting engaged. It is organized around the principle that what matters is providing quality services, not a funding level or preserving the way we provide those services today. That the priority is the students, not the providers. Also, rather than just another category of government spending, education – human capital development – is the most important ingredient in growing the Michigan economy.

The framework describes a base level of services for early childhood, k-12 and higher education that the Board believes is required if we are to prepare Michiganians for the 21st Century. And then begins to tackle the hard issue of how to pay for the services. Rather than an either/or choice – the way the debate is currently framed  – they propose both spending cuts in areas that do not effect providing services to students and tax increases and restructuring. In addition, they recommend regulatory reform at the state level to allow for more flexibility and innovation in the provision of teaching and learning.

All three steps are difficult politically. They involve all of us giving something up. They take on core constituencies in both parties. But our budget problems are so severe and the need to increase human capital so important that doing all three is necessary if we want to recreate a high prosperity Michigan. More of the same – a reduced quality of services for students of all ages – is a recipe for continued economic decline.

More broadly she cites the Right Brain Initiative which makes the case that to be successful we will need both left and right brain skills. This is the case Daniel Pink made so compelling in his terrific book, the Whole New Mind. It’s one of the trends we talk about when we do presentations for educators. That it is likely that job growth in advanced economies – like the US – will be increasingly right brain. Left brain skills are the easiest to automate and outsource.

My biggest disappointment with the valuable new high schools graduation requirements is that they are so left brain dominant. Requiring one arts course and eight in math and science does not reflect the likely skills needed by the economy going forward. Add to that the evidence that for many students the arts are both a way to engage them in learning and an effective way to build the skills we are requiring, we need to find a way to reverse the trend away from including the arts in the core k-12 curriculum.

My guess is that the features needed to get to a higher ed 90/90 are quite similar to those in urban high schools. As I have written previously the most important characteristic is educators who believe and are committed to all students succeeding and that if the students are not on track, its the educators – not the students – that have to change. Secondly a focus on the “whole student” not just teaching content. Think of this as providing for every student the kind of support services received by scholarship athletes. Two Detroit area high schools ( U Prep Academy and Ferndale’s University High School) are providing these kind of comprehensive “stay in college” supports to their predominantly African America graduates with surprisingly good results. High schools shouldn’t have to provide these services, universities should. And finally a change in pedagogy. No more  teachers standing in front of the class and delivering content. Its not the way most students learn.

We need both higher education institutions and policy makers to focus on what levers are available to get 90/90 outcomes. Its the key to getting the kind of substantial gains in human capital Michigan needs to regrow a high prosperity economy.

He correctly points out that the official higher education graduation rates are not very good at measuring student success. Two main reasons: There is no system for following the student. So lots of students go to a community  college to earn credits for a four year degree at a university. They are counted for the community college as not getting a degree on time. And secondly because lots of students enter a community college not looking to get a degree. Many looking for skills to help find a job. So the official statistics measure them against a standard that is not connected to what they are looking for.

Clearly we need to completely revamp the standards and data collection system for higher education. The system needs to measure student outcomes – no matter how many institutions they attend – based on success in meeting student goals. That said, even with the right measurements, the system will still have success rates lower than they should be.

The main point of my post was that just like urban high schools, higher education institutions could get much better student outcomes – whether its a degree or a job – if they become obsessed with student success. That there are reforms that can and should happen at each institution in how they serve students and deliver teaching and learning that could susbstantially improve student success.

To get there we need to move to a far better system of defining and measuring student success as well as accountability standards with consequences. Just as we are increasingly intolerant of high schools where kids don’t graduate or meet basic academic standards, we need to be intolerant of higher education institutions where far too many students enter remediation classes and never develop the skills to take a college level class and where the success of students in meeting their goals – degree or otherwise – is not met in far too many cases.

• An article in Nature on Pittsburgh’s resurgence. A frequent question I’m asked is what is the model for metro Detroit/Michigan to make the transition from a factory-based to a knowledge-based economy. Metro Pittsburgh sure is one. They lost steel – their dominant industry – more than two decades ago. As the article indicates today they are knowledge-based and on the upswing. We are going to feature metro Pittsburgh in our next annual Progress Report.

• Another terrific editorial in the Grand Rapids Press. This time on the need for higher taxes to fix our roads. Now with a gas tax, ultimately with a tax based on road usage using new technologies. The notion that we are better off not raising taxes and with crumbling roads, not to mention hardly any transit, is simply wrong.

• Finally a really disturbing article in the New York Times over the weekend on problems with for profit trade schools. Far too many students leaving with high debts and low wages. The article portrays an industry that makes its money from federal grants and loans rather than student payments. But leaves many of its students unable to earn the kind of middle class incomes the schools advertise. The problem is complicated by big student loans which reduce further the standard of living of trade school graduates. Not mentioned in the article, its even worse for those who don’t graduate who also have big student loans and even lower wages.