Apprenticeships for the 21st Century
Schools have long been about preparing students for a future of work.
In the old days, most kids stopped going to school and started working at a young age, probably younger than most of us would want.
There were different ways of dealing with learning, but much of it was on-the-job learning that required a sometimes formal relationship in the form of an apprenticeship.
I’ve long advocated for schools to take a different approach to hiring.
But I believe this different approach can be applied to almost any other job as well.
Let’s use education as a model, and add perspective with other industries after.
First, identify early what someone wants to do, and then give them opportunities in that arena.
At any high school, there are a number of students enrolled who say they want to be teachers when they grow up.
When students start expressing that interest, we should give them opportunities to do that, safely and appropriately for their age.
For example, volunteering to read to younger kids in the elementary classroom can be an easy way for students to start experiencing what it is like to be around kids.
Many schools offer opportunities for kids to be teacher’s aides, even in their own school, and that is fine, too, but it’s taking a class period and not involving them in the process of becoming a teacher.
Second, give them a job!
Kids who are fresh out of high school could qualify for many jobs in schools, and if we know they are interested, they will be all the more motivated to continue that work.
High school graduates can become aides, paraprofessionals, janitors, and do many office-type jobs at the district office as well.
There are a couple benefits here, also, that are long-term benefits. They get involved in retirement sooner, have benefits right out of high school, start learning how to work and serve others in a real way very early in their life.
Third, give them specific training.
Schools already give teachers specific training, and they should be learning institutions, so it shouldn’t be a far cry to develop a training program for students who want to become teachers.
Many have argued that college is not the best pathway and that other avenues may be more beneficial. And this isn’t arguing that college is abandoned, just that the school district could provide college-level training (or partner with a university to offer a specific program).
Young people are employed by the district, trained by the district, and then hired by the district as teachers when they have reached a certain level.
The district has many benefits from this, not the least of which is homegrown teachers. Teachers that went to that school, and are going to stay in the community is a powerful thing.
The district also knows how many teacher positions it needs to fill and who is available to fill them. They will have known the applicants and know the applicants are already familiar with the system and how to make it work in their community.
They can continue with training, as they do know, through national board certification, masters degrees, and many other ways of helping their employees learn.
Currently, the official learning (certifications) is all on the prospective employee or current employee to take care of, but a smart school district could take this on.
But there are some issues. So let’s look at those. I’m going to write about these issues and change my perspective from employing a teacher to any business role, because these same issues exist. Then I’ll talk more about specific roles in other companies.
What if kids miss out on something else they want to do? Of course, young adults are going to change their minds! That’s fine! This will require some getting used to, for sure. But here’s the thing, if the student has a job already, and they decide they want to go to school for something else, or try a different job, that should be an acceptable proposition. As they get deeper into the program, they likely will stay committed.
But if they don’t there really should be some sort of reckoning for leaving a commitment early.
What if the person stinks at that job? Some people think they want to do something and then find out it is not for them. I’d much rather know this as an employer before I’m paying them a six-figure salary and can either guide them to the right job or get them out of my organization before it becomes too difficult. If they are a good person with other good qualities but can’t cut fulfilling a certain role, they can be guided to somewhere else in the organization, or it can be determined they are not a good fit, and they will have learned some valuable skills along the way! And guess what, this happens already. We all know someone who started a job, only to find out it was terrible for them and they got fired! Better to determine this early for both employee and employer!
What if kids decide they don’t want to do that role they are training for anymore and they are stuck? Welcome to life! As with any role, there is a chance that it won’t work out, you’ll get sick of it, or you’ll just want to do something else.
How do we pay for this? The Learning Policy Institute has a handy calculator that estimates it costs between 11K and 24K to replace a teacher that leaves. Business turnover has costs as well. Gallup estimates that businesses are spending 1 trillion dollars every year due to voluntary turnover, and suggest that replacement costs are 1/2 to 2x the employee’s salary!
Surely, having a steady pipeline of workers would make those additional costs largely disappear!
I would also add that education is valuable. People need to learn all throughout their life. It is absolutely acceptable to use some of that money they are making from working to pay for their education. Perhaps the organization sponsoring them pays for it, perhaps not, depending on how big they are and what is plausible.
What if we invest in someone and they leave? I hate to break it to you, but this is the same age-old question that has been asked for as long as people have been working for anyone else? Companies will invest in people (as they do now) and some of those people will leave. That is the nature of agency, and rather than fear it, we should prepare for it.
Will the education be transferable? This is a key question. If a company trains someone to be successful, only in that company, and then if that person leaves they won’t be qualified for any other job, then this plan falls apart completely. For example, if the job they are training the person for requires a “college degree” then that needs to be part of the training. In the school example, being a teacher requires a college degree, but it really requires a teaching certificate. Partnerships with colleges must forged so people get the training needed and the certificates needed as well.
The United States Military trains its soldiers to do lots of different jobs, and then 1-2 years before separation, soldiers are required to participate in Transition Assistance Program and a SkillBridge program to ensure they have an offramp to a good career.
Now, let’s talk about this in the business world. What is different?
Modern-Day Apprenticeships
Truly, it’s not really different. We find people who are interested in the field, and give them roles within the company and accelerate their training.
To be clear, I’m not talking about this being the solution for every single student in America, but rather, I’m suggesting this is a pathway that companies could implement to ensure they have the workforce they need! To train up people in the way they want them if working at that company.
For example, huge corporations like investment banks, tech companies (Alphabet, Meta, X, OpenAI, Amazon) could do partnerships with local communities where they have offices or data centers, or even areas where they want to find great people, and start this process early. If you want great engineers, start teaching people early how to be great engineers, involve them in solving real problems, give them experience and opportunity, and train them just how you want them to work!
Consider a medical research company that makes pharmaceutical drugs. They bring young folks in to work on the machines processing the drugs. You don’t need much education in certain roles, and on-the-job training is essential anyway. As they continue to learn and work, they study the things they need to move into a new role, eventually, if they want, becoming a scientist who develops the pharmaceuticals themselves.
In this scenario, or the engineering scenario, the investment in the young person would be very large indeed. But that employee is adding value to the business at the same time. Some years the person would be working fewer hours so they could devote more time to learning. Some years the person would be just learning by working. Some roles would just require time and experience to progress.
An actuary needs to take tests to become certified, but most of these tests are taken after they already have a job.
Obviously, this is an immense investment in the young person. It takes years to just get enough knowledge to be proficient in that field. Not only would the company have to be patient as the young person learned all they needed, but the young person would have to be patient as well. A pathway could easily be designed in nearly any industry or job.
Companies could even band together to support other non-technical roles. Creating partnerships with universities to supply book knowledge would be beneficial, but not necessary because they could likely learn so much on the job. Partnerships with universities would serve the employees well because they would still have the mark of an institution certifying that they have learned what they need to, especially in the early years.
Over time, the credentials of the in-house training programs would speak for themselves, just as having Google, Deloitte, Goldman Sachs, or OpenAI on your resume today means something.
Let’s even take a small business, that may only hire 1-2 people a decade. A window washing company could employ teenagers for a summer, teaching them what they need to know, and offer part time jobs to teens who show aptitude or interest. Then continue training them over time to have the skills necessary to run the business.
The only difference between a giant company and a one-man shop is the scale.
Certain businesses, like startups, obviously, wouldn’t be able to do this because they don’t even exist yet! And often, they don’t know what they need. But as soon as a business/non-profit/school/government, or any other entity, knows that it will be around in 10 years, it should start training and preparing people to work in it.
This is the education of the future.
Notes mentioning this note
There are no notes linking to this note.