# Archived Information

The Economic Imperative for Improving Education

Issue Papers

Preparing America's Future: The High School Initiative

A nation's store of human capital---the knowledge and skills of the
workforce---increasingly determines its well being in the modern world.
The creation of human capital depends more and more on a country's
ability to educate its population. Yet,

American schools are not keeping pace with this economic imperative.
With the *No Child Left Behind Act of 2001*, the nation has made a
commitment to raise the proficiency of students to ensure that every
student is prepared for postsecondary education or training.

*No Child Left Behind* offers a major opportunity to mobilize high
schools to address the economic imperative for a more rigorous education
system in the United States. If the nation's youth are to have a future
with promise, the nation now needs to take bold and comprehensive action
to reshape our high schools. Such improvement depends on the quality of
curriculum and instruction the schools provide, the environment they
create for learning, and the signals they send to students about what
matters.

**The Global Economy, Technology, and Jobs**

The well being of the nation increasingly depends upon U.S. high schools
rising to the challenge of preparing all students for a new economic
reality. Prior to the mid-1970s, it was economically sufficient to
provide an excellent education to an elite group of students and a basic
education to the rest of the population. No longer. Students need to
stay in school, take challenging courses, and be prepared for further
education or training. But this has not been happening.

In a world where financial capital, technology, information and goods
flow freely across borders, economic advantage goes to the educated and
entrepreneurial. \[endnote 1\] Once, when communications and transport
were slower, nations with great stores of natural resources, proximity
to markets, and other physical advantages had an economic edge. Now the
race goes to the educated, trained, and motivated---wherever they are.

Twenty-first century high-tech firms in the United States look to
software developers in India and well-educated office workers in
Ireland, while British firms interested in establishing market
leadership in biotechnology recruit American scientists. At the same
time, production processes that require workers with only modest
knowledge and skill often move to countries where labor is cheap.

Aside from rearranging the global marketplace, advancing technology has
boosted productivity and allowed domestic firms to run their businesses
with fewer workers. Gone are the days when workers in a plant or office
focused on one rote task, leaving all the critical thinking and
decision-making to managers. If the work is routine it will probably be
automated.

These changes have increased the skill and knowledge requirements for
most workers. Today's flexible workplaces rely on people who can handle
multiple tasks, interact well with their colleagues, respond to varying
customer needs, identify problems and make quick decisions about how to
fix them. This is true not only of manufacturing but also in a wide
range of services, such as finance, insurance, telecommunications and
other industries where advances in computing and communications have
accelerated the pace of change.

The marketplace increasingly provides companies with incentives to be as
lean and flexible as possible. It also encourages them to adopt policies
that attract and hold highly capable workers who enable the firm to
function as an organization that is constantly learning.

**Knowledge Workers for the 21^st^ Century**

All of this does not necessarily mean fewer jobs, if the workforce is
properly prepared. It is just that the jobs are, and will be, different.
Modern firms seek employees whom management expert Peter Drucker calls
"knowledge workers."

Admittedly, not every workplace demands such qualifications. Baggage
handlers and taxi drivers may not see their job requirements change much
at all. But there will be fewer low-skill jobs with family-supporting
wages. This reality is borne out in projections from the U.S Department
of Labor, which identify the fastest growing jobs from 2000 to 2010 (see
Figure 1).

Figure 1: Fastest Growing Occupations.

Graphic: This is a bar chart showing the percentage Change in Employment
in the Ten Occupations Projected to Grow Faster, 2000-2010. The
occupations and percentages are as follows. Computer software engineers,
applications is projected to grow 100 percent. Computer support
specialists is projected to grow 97 percent. Computer software
engineers, systems software is projected to grow 90 percent. Network and
computer systems administrators is projected to grow 82 percent. Network
Systems and data communications analysis is projected to grow 77
percent. Desktop publishers is projected to grow 67 percent. Database
administrators is projected to grow 66 percent. Personal and home care
aides is projected to grow 62 percent. Computer systems analysts is
projected to grow 60 percent. Medical assistants is projected to grow 57
percent.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2000-2010
Employment Projections, 2001.

Eight of the ten occupations listed in Figure 1 require some form of
postsecondary education, and this trend will continue. According to
Labor Department projections, jobs requiring postsecondary education
will experience above-average growth, while those requiring only
on-the-job training or work experience will grow at less than the
expected 15 percent average projected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
in the first decade of the new millennium (see Figure 2). Although such
jobs will continue to make up a large share of the labor market, they
will pay much less than the jobs that require postsecondary education or
training.

Figure 2: Job Growth Tied to Postsecondary Education.

Graphic: This is a bar chart showing the Percentage Change in Number of
Jobs by Most Significant Source of Education or Training, Projected
2000-2010. The education or training and percentages are as follows. For
an associates degree the percentage is 32 percent. For a doctoral degree
the percentage is 23.7 percent. For a master's degree the percentage is
23.4 percent. For a bachelor's degree the percentage is 21.6 percent.
For work experience plus bachelor\'s degree or higher the percentage
change is 19.4 percent. For first professional degree the percentage
change is 18.2 percent. For postsecondary vocational award the
percentage change is 18.2 percent. For short-term on-the-job training
the percentage change is 14.4 percent. For moderate-term on-the-job
training the percentage change is 11.3 percent. For work experience in a
related occupation the percentage change is 10.5 percent. For long-term
on-the-job training the percentage change is 7.5 percent.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Tomorrow\'s Jobs Bulletin 2540-1, 2002.

These requirements for more skilled workers continue a shift in
education requirements that has been evolving for years. In nineteen
ninety seven, 53 percent of employers reported that the skills required
for production and support jobs increased in the previous three years.
Only six percent indicated that skill requirements were declining.
\[endnote 2\]

**A Growing Gap**

Greater educational achievement has long been linked to greater income
(see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Earnings Depend Increasingly on Educational Attainment.

Graphics: These are line charts showing the earnings of prime age (30-59
years old) male and female workers in 2000 dollars for the years
nineteen fifty nine to nineteen ninety eight for workers with graduate
degrees, bachelor's degrees, associates degrees, high school diplomas,
workers who failed to finish high school, and all prime age workers. The
male workers chart is as follows. The line for workers with graduate
degrees rises from about 50,000 dollars in nineteen fifty nine to about
88,000 dollars in nineteen ninety eight. The line for workers with
bachelor's degrees rises from about 50,000 dollars in nineteen fifty
nine to about 60,000 in nineteen ninety eight. The line for workers with
associates rises from about 40,000 dollars in nineteen fifty nine, peaks
at about 42,000 in nineteen seventy nine, then falls to about 41,000 in
nineteen ninety eight. The line for workers with a high school diploma
rises from about 30,000 dollars in nineteen fifty nine, peaks at about
40,000 dollars in nineteen seventy nine, then falls to about 31,000
dollars in nineteen ninety eight. The line for workers who failed to
finish high school rises from about 25,000 dollars in nineteen fifty
nine, peaks at about 30,000 dollars in nineteen seventy nine, then falls
to about 24,000 dollars in nineteen ninety eight. The line for all prime
age workers rises sharply from about 28,000 dollars in nineteen fifty
nine, then rises more gradually beginning in nineteen seventy nine at
about 41,000 dollars to about 45,000 dollars in nineteen ninety eight.
The female workers chart is as follows. The line for workers with
graduate degrees rises from about 30,000 dollars in nineteen fifty nine
to about 48,000 dollars in nineteen ninety eight. The line for workers
with bachelor's degrees rises from about 20,000 dollars in nineteen
fifty nine to about 37,000 dollars in nineteen ninety eight. The line
for workers with associates degrees rises from about 15,000 dollars in
nineteen fifty nine to about 28,000 dollars in nineteen ninety eight.
The line for workers with high school diplomas rises from about 14,000
dollars in nineteen fifty nine to about 20,000 dollars in nineteen
ninety eight. The line for workers who dropped out of high school rises
from about 12,000 dollars in nineteen fifty nine to about 14,000 dollars
in nineteen ninety eight. The line for all prime age workers rises from
about 13,000 dollars in nineteen fifty nine to about 28,000 dollars in
nineteen ninety eight.

In recent years, however, the gap between those who have more education
and those who have less has grown. The relationship between education
and income for working men and women 25 years old and over is abundantly
clear (see Figure 4).

Figure 4: Income and Education.

Graphic: This is a bar chart showing the Median Annual Income of
Year-Round, Full-Time Workers 25 years old and over, by Level of
Education Completed and Sex for the year 1999. The median annual incomes
by level of educational attainment and gender are as follows. Men with
less than a 9^th^ grade education earn 21,000 dollars. Women with less
than a 9^th^ grade education earn 18,000 dollars. Men with a 9^th^ to
12^th^ grade education but no diploma earn 25,000 dollars. Women with a
9^th^ to 12^th^ grade education but no diploma earn 19,000 dollars. Men
with high school diplomas earn 35,000 dollars. Women with high school
diplomas earn 24,000 dollars. Men with some college but no degree earn
40,000 dollars. Women with some college but no degree earn 28,000
dollars. Men with an associate's degree earn 41,000 dollars. Women with
an associate's degree earn 30,000 dollars. Men with a bachelor's degree
earn 57,000 dollars. Women with a bachelor's degree earn 39,000 dollars.
Men with a master's degree earn 65,000 dollars. Women with a master's
degree earn 45,000 dollars. Men with a professional degree earn 100,000
dollars. Women with a professional degree earn 60,000 dollars. Men with
a doctorate degree earn 81,000 dollars. Women with a doctorate degree
earn 60,000 dollars.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, NCES, (2002). Digest of Education
Statistics 2001 (NCES 2002-130). Washington D.C.

In the year 2000, female and male college graduates earned 60 and 95
percent more, respectively, than those who had not gone beyond high
school. \[endnote 3\] High school dropouts faced even more difficult
circumstances, as they earned 27 and 30 percent less, respectively, than
their male and female counterparts who completed only high school or a
GED. Of the 50 best-paying occupations in the country, only two (air
traffic controller and nuclear power reactor operator) do not require a
college degree. \[endnote 4\]

**The Challenge for High Schools**

American business leaders have been among the strongest advocates for
school improvement. They understand that their own long-term success is
tightly linked to the quality of individuals entering the labor market
each year from our schools. A recent survey highlights this concern
about workforce quality. \[endnote 5\] Eighty percent of responding
businesses said they had a "moderate to serious" shortage of qualified
job candidates. They cited poor reading, writing, math, verbal
communication and English language skills as issues. The survey noted
that the lack of an adequately skilled workforce could "drive a
business, already operating on a competitive edge, out of the global
game."

**Dropping out**

Young people can't prepare for further education and training if they
haven't finished high school. In 2000, there were 3.8 million
16--24-year-olds who were not enrolled in school and who had not yet
completed a high school program. \[endnote 6\] The rate has remained at
about 11 percent since 1992.

For minority students, especially Hispanics (nearly 30 percent in 1999)
the rates are higher; in many urban areas the rates are higher still.
While the quality of their schooling may be only one of many reasons
students drop out, it is essential to address this issue. For young
people growing up in difficult circumstances, a good high school can
mean the difference between a promising future and no future at all.

**Not measuring up**

Where proficiency and excellence are required, students are struggling
to attain even basic skills. In the latest National Assessment of
Educational

Progress (NAEP) (see Figure 5), for example, only 40 percent of 12th
graders test as proficient in reading. The figure for other subjects is
worse: 21 percent in writing, 17 percent in math, 19 percent in science,
and so on.

Figure 5: NAEP Scores.

Graphic: this is a chart showing the Percentage Distribution of the
Scores of 12th-Graders in Selected NAEP Tests, by Proficiency Level:
1998, 2000 and 2002. Students fall into one of 4 categories: below
basic, basic, proficient, and advanced. For the 2000 mathematics test,
35 percent of students scored below basic; 48 percent scored basic; 14
percent scored proficient; and 2 percent scored advanced. For the 2000
science test, 47 percent of students scored below basic; 34 percent
scored basic; 16 percent scored proficient; and 2 percent scored
advanced. For the 2002 reading test, 26 percent of students scored below
basic; 38 percent of students scored basic; 31 percent of students
scored proficient; and 5 percent of students scored advanced. For the
2002 writing test, 26 percent of students scored below basic; 51 percent
of students scored basic; 22 percent of students scored proficient; and
2 percent of students scored advanced. For the 1998 civics test, 35
percent of students scored below basic; 65 percent of students scored
basic; 26 percent of students scored proficient; and 4 percent of
students scored advanced.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, NCES. (2001). Mathematics
Highlights 2000 (NCES 2001-518); Science Highlights 2000 (NCES
2002-452); NAEP 2002 Reading (NCES 2003-521); NAEP 2002 Writing (NCES
1999-464); and The Next Generation of Citizens: NAEP Civics Assessments
1988 and 1998 (NCES 2001-452) Washington, D.C.

The United States also ranked near the bottom on achievement in math and
science of 21 countries participating in the Third International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) in 1995. These results were little
different from those achieved during earlier evaluations in the 1960s
and 1980s. \[endnote 7\] These are not the marks of a world-class
workforce or a world-class education system.

A significant and troubling achievement gap also persists between White
and minority students. As measured by the latest NAEP results, the gap
is largest between White and African American students: 26 percentage
points in reading, 43 in mathematics and 40 in science. The gap is only
slightly smaller between White and Hispanic students. With minorities
making up a growing segment of the labor force, this gap not only poses
difficult issues for social progress but is likely to have adverse
economic consequences as well.

**Lack of Academic Rigor**

The NAEP test scores in part reflect the course-taking patterns of high
school students. Research has shown that students who take a more
demanding high school curriculum are more likely to enroll in college
and complete a postsecondary degree. Taking more rigorous courses also
can help close the achievement gap. \[endnote 8\]

Too few students have taken the courses they need to be adequately
prepared for postsecondary education. \[endnote 9\] For example, 43
percent of 1998 graduates still followed the discredited "general"
track, with its less than rigorous curriculum that typically falls far
below the knowledge and skill required to prepare students for
college-level work, whether at community colleges, technical colleges or
four-year institutions.

Almost one-third of new college entrants take one or more remedial
courses. \[endnote 10\] When gaining basic knowledge and skills is
postponed until entry into postsecondary education, students and
colleges wind up spending time and money that could be devoted elsewhere
and can diminish a student's commitment to pursuing a college
credential. With so many students entering college not prepared for its
demands, it is no surprise that so many never earn a degree.

Although by the late 1990s signs of more students choosing demanding
secondary courses were encouraging, overall performance levels still
indicated that the nation had a long way to go before all students leave
high school prepared for college and high-skilled work. \[endnote 11\]

**Taking Action: Preparing America's Future**

The United States has been fortunate to have enjoyed success in the
international marketplace even as far too many American students leave
high school with the most minor of accomplishments and less prepared for
the world than students in many other countries with advanced economies.
Analysts who have carefully examined this issue believe we have fared as
well as we have in recent years because of our size, the flexibility of
our labor markets, and the ease with which we have been able to tap the
talents of professionals from other nations, whether as immigrants or as
"off-shore" employees. \[endnote 12\]

But other nations are not standing still, and there is no guarantee that
today's advantages will be permanent. In time it is likely that others
will learn from our example, as American firms learned valuable lessons
from Japanese manufacturers in the 1980s. When that day comes, the
quality of our human capital will be more important than ever. So while
the nation has enjoyed great prosperity in the past decade in spite of
the performance of our schools, our future rests on doing much better.

Many high school educators across the country have shown that young
people who others thought could not achieve could indeed excel. Yet, too
many schools give up on certain students or hold others to the most
modest of expectations. If schools that provide an excellent education
for all their students are to become the norm, then fundamental change
in expectations and in policy and practice must be the order of the day.

**Endnotes**

1 Carnevale, A. and Desrochers, D. *Standards for What? The Economic
Roots of K-16 Reform*. (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service,
2003).

2 University of Pennsylvania, National Center on the Educational Quality
of the Workforce. 1997. *1997 National Employer Survey, Phase II*.
Philadelphia, PA.

3 U.S. Department of Education, NCES. 2002. *The Condition of Education
2002 (NCES 2002-025)*. Indicator 16. Washington, DC.

4 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2002.
*Tomorrow's Jobs (Bulletin 2540-1).* (Reprinted from the *Occupational
Outlook Handbook,* 2002-03

Edition). Washington, DC.

5 National Association of Manufacturers, Andersen, and Center for
Workforce Success. 2001. *The Skills Gap 2001.* Washington, DC.

6 Kaufman, P., et al. *Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000 (NCES
2002-114).* (U.S. Department of Education, NCES. Washington, DC, 2002).

7 U.S. Department of Education, NCES. 1998. *Pursuing Excellence: A
Study of U.S. Twelfth-Grade Mathematics and Science Achievement in
International*

*Context (NCES 98-049).* Washington, DC.

8 Horn, L. and Nuñez, A. *Mapping the Road to College: First Generation
Students' Math Track, Planning Strategies, and Context of Support (NCES
2000-153)*.

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, NCES, 2000).

9 Levesque, K. *Trends in High School Vocational/Technical Course
Taking: 1982---1998.* (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
NCES, 2003).

Ten Lewis, L., et al. *Remedial Education at Higher Education
Institutions in Fall 1995 (NCES 97-584)*. (Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, NCES,

1996).

Eleven U.S. Department of Education, NCES. 2000. *The Condition of
Education 2000* (NCES 2000-062). Table 40-1 and Table 33-1. Washington,
DC.

Twelve Carnevale, A. and Desrochers, D. 2003.

This paper was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No.
ED-99 CO-0163 with DTI Associates, Inc. No official endorsement by the
U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service or
enterprise mentioned in this paper is intended or should be inferred.

Reprinting of this publication is authorized with the following
citation: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult
Education, Washington, DC, 2003. For more information about the U.S.
Department of Education\'s work on high schools, visit
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/hsinit/index.html.