NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 97-939

FINDINGS FROM

EDUCATION AND THE ECONOMY:

AN INDICATORS REPORT
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 97-939

FINDINGS FROM

EDUCATION AND THE ECONOMY:

AN INDICATORS REPORT

Paul T. Decker

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT

Marshall S. Smith

Acting Assistant Secretary

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Pascal D. Forgione, Jr.

Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for

collecting, analyzing, and reporting data related to education in the United States

and other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and

report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the United States;

conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their

statistical systems; and review and report on education activities in foreign countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide

consistent, reliable, complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends;

and report timely, useful, and high quality data to the U.S. Department of Education,

the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and

the general public.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that

is appropriate to a variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of

our success in communicating information effectively. If you have any comments or

suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we would like to hear

from you. Please direct your comments to:

National Center for Education Statistics

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20208-5574

March 1997

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page is: http://www.ed.gov/NCES/

Suggested Citation:

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Findings

From Education and the Economy: An Indicators Report, NCES 97-939, by Paul T.

Decker. Washington, DC: 1997.

The text in this booklet appears in Education and the Economy: An Indicators Report.

Barbara Kridl, Andrea Livingston, Karyn Madden, Mary Sukkestad, Leslie Retallick, and Don

Eike of MPR Associates edited and designed this booklet.
1

The productivity of the U.S. work force is a primary determinant of

the standard of living of the U.S. population. Worker productivity is

typically measured as output per worker or per hour worked. It is

affected by many factors, including the education and skills of the

work force. Education and skills are important because they expand

a worker’s capacity to perform tasks or to use productive technologies. In addition, better educated workers can adapt more easily to

new tasks or to changes in old tasks. Education may also prepare

workers to work more effectively in teams because it enhances their

ability to communicate with and understand their co-workers.

Much of the recent concern about the productivity of U.S. workers

has been prompted by uncertainty about the ability of domestic

firms and workers to compete in an increasingly international marketplace. As growth in U.S. productivity has slowed over the past

two decades and other countries achieve productivity levels similar

to those in the United States, concern about the competitiveness of

U.S. firms and workers has increased. Some attribute the loss of the

nation’s productivity advantage to what they claim is the limited

ability of the U.S. educational system to provide students with the

skills necessary to succeed in today’s labor market. However, factors other than education also affect productivity, and these must be

considered when comparing productivity trends across countries.

Variation in the quality and quantity of education across countries is

only one factor contributing to differences in worker productivity;

capital investment, technical innovation, foreign trade, and government regulation can also affect productivity. Nevertheless, education 

FINDINGS FROM

EDUCATION AND THE ECONOMY:

AN INDICATORS REPORT
2

remains an important contributor to productivity growth and has a

major influence on the standard of living. This essay highlights several

measures of productivity and education, and addresses the link

between these two sets of measures. A better understanding of the

relationship between worker productivity and the condition of education is essential to understand how investment in education contributes to the U.S. economy.

TRENDS IN WORKER PRODUCTIVITY AND THE

CONTRIBUTION OF EDUCATION

■ Worker productivity in the United States has

increased almost continuously since the end of

World War II, but growth has slowed since 1973.

Worker productivity in the United States has grown almost continuously since the end of World War II, rising to a level in 1994 that is

approximately three times that of 1947 (figure A). Post-war growth in

productivity was slower after 1973 than it was before 1973. From 1947

through 1973, output per hour increased by nearly 3 percent per year,

compared to slightly more than 1 percent per year from 1973 through

1994. It is unclear whether the slowdown in productivity growth since

1973 merely reflects fluctuation around the long-term growth rate,

which is equal to about 2 percent, or whether it signals slower longterm growth.

■ Since World War II, worker productivity has grown

more slowly in the United States than in other

industrialized countries.

For several decades, productivity in other industrialized countries has

been gradually catching up to that in the United States (figure B).

However, the United States remained the leader as of 1990, with a

gross domestic product (GDP) per worker that was slightly higher

than that in Canada, and about 25 percent higher than that in Italy, the

country with the third highest GDP per worker.
3

According to one theory of productivity growth, referred to as the

convergence hypothesis,1 it is to be expected that productivity in lagging countries will converge on that of the United States because

these countries can exploit technologies transferred from the United

States, thereby closing the gap in worker productivity. This “catching-up” process suggests that the United States is inevitably at risk

of losing its lead in worker productivity as long as other countries

have the capabilities, including an adequately educated work force,

to exploit new productive technologies.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

’47 ’54 ’62 ’70 ’78 ’86 ’94

Year

Output index

(1977=100)

1947–73 Trend

Output per hour

Figure A

Index of real output per hour of all persons,

business sector: 1947–94

NOTE: Figures for years after 1988 were originally based on 1982=100. They

were multiplied by a factor of 1.013 for use in the 1977=100 index. Hours of all

persons include hours of employees, proprietors, and unpaid family workers.

Output is the constant-dollar market value of final goods and services produced.

For the business sector, the index relates to gross domestic product (GDP) less

general government, output of nonprofit institutions, output of paid employees

of private households, and rental value of owner-occupied dwellings. Business output

was about 78 percent of GDP in 1992.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Handbook of

Labor Statistics, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989; Monthly

Labor Review 18 (8) (August 1995): 175.
The ability of the United States to have maintained a substantial

lead in productivity for nearly a century is at least partly attributable to the two world wars, which destroyed the productive capacity of other countries while spurring technological innovation in

U.S. manufacturing. However, the huge productivity advantage of

the United States has dissipated under the more normal post-war

economic conditions, which have allowed other countries to rebuild

their productive capacities and expand their technological capabilities. It now appears that the other industrialized countries may

eventually share the lead in productivity with the United States.

4

Figure B

Real GDP per worker in G–7 nations: 1950–90

 (in thousands of dollars based on 1985 international prices)

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

Real GDP

per worker

’50 ’54 ’58 ’62 ’66 ’70 ’74 ’78 ’82 ’86 ’90

Canada

U.K.

Italy

Japan

U.S.

France West

Germany

Year

SOURCE: Penn World Table (Mark 5.6), distributed by the National Bureau of

Economic Research. For a description, see Robert Summers and Alan

Heston, “The Penn World Table (Mark 5): An Expanded Set of International

Comparisons, 1950–1988,” Quarterly Journal of Economics (May 1991):

327–368.
But insofar as the “catching-up” process involves the transfer of

technology from the leader country to the lagging countries, the

process should eventually slow down as the lagging countries

exhaust their opportunities to exploit new technologies from the

leader. Eventually, the countries sharing the lead in productivity

would presumably be in a position to exploit technological

advances from each other.

■ Growth in education has historically been an important source of growth in worker productivity.

Increases in educational attainment were responsible for an estimated 11 to 20 percent of growth in worker productivity in the

United States in recent decades.2 Growth in factors other than

education have also contributed to growth in worker productivity. For example, increases in capital accounted for an estimated 40

percent of growth in worker productivity in the United States

from 1948 to 1990.3 In addition to capital, such factors as technical

innovation, foreign trade, and government regulation can also

affect productivity.

The historical contributions of these factors affecting productivity

are not necessarily indicative of the relative returns to potential

investments in the factors. They simply reflect the linking of the

relative growth rates of each factor over the past several years to

the productivity growth rate. The growth accounting methods

used to determine these sources of productivity growth cannot be

used to identify future preferred input investments.

Education appears to play an important role in worker productivity

in all industrialized countries. The industrialized countries with

the highest productivity levels tend to have highly educated work

forces, and the convergence in productivity among these countries generally parallels that in educational attainment.

5
THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF EDUCATION

FOR INDIVIDUALS

Ultimately, growth in a nation’s productivity results from growth in

the productivity of individual workers. The best available measure

of a worker’s productivity is that worker’s wages, as employers

generally pay wages equal to the marginal productivity of their

workers. The impact of education on the productivity of workers

can be determined by estimating the impact of education on wages.

Education may also improve workers’ employment stability,

enabling more educated workers to maintain their jobs or to

quickly find new jobs in the face of changing economic conditions. Therefore, the association between education and unemployment can be a further indication of the effect of education on

the productivity of workers. 

Educational Attainment

■ Workers with higher educational attainment are

unemployed less and earn more than workers with

lower educational attainment.

Over the past 30 years, a substantial proportion of high school graduates and dropouts were unemployed shortly after leaving high

school, with dropouts generally facing a higher unemployment rate

than graduates (figure C). In 1994, 30 percent of recent dropouts

were unemployed, compared to 20 percent of recent graduates not

enrolled in college. The unemployment rates for both groups have

increased since 1960.

Median earnings are positively associated with educational attainment (figure D). Among males ages 25–34 years in 1993, median 

6
earnings of those with a college degree were equal to about $33,000

per year, which was more than 50 percent greater than the median

earnings of high school graduates and more than twice those of

high school dropouts. The relationship between education and earnings for females is similar, although within each educational category, earnings are lower for females than for males.

7

Figure C

Unemployment rate of recent high school graduates

and dropouts not enrolled in college: 1960–94

NOTE: Recent high school graduates include individuals ages 16–24

years who graduated during the survey year and were not enrolled in

college. Recent high school dropouts include individuals ages 16–24

years who did not graduate and who were in school 12 months earlier,

but who were not enrolled in the survey month.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics, The Condition of Education, 1995, and special tabulations;

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, October Current

Population Surveys.

High school graduates

Dropouts

trend

line

Year

Unemployment rate (percent)

trend

line

’60 ’66 ’70 ’74 ’78 ’82 ’86 ’90 ’94

0

10

20

30

40

50
■ Educational attainment in the United States has

increased over the past 20 years. 

The proportion of 18- to 24-year-olds who have completed high

school has increased slowly, rising from approximately 83 percent

in 1972 to about 86 percent in 1994 (figure E). An increasing number

of students who have completed high school also move on to college. Among recent high school graduates, the college enrollment

rate increased from 49 percent in 1972 to 62 percent in 1994.

However, many students who enroll in college do not complete four

years there. The completion rate of 27 percent in 1994 was only

slightly higher than the rate of 20 years before. 

8

Figure D

Earnings for all wage and salary earners ages 25–34 years,

by sex and educational attainment: 1993

Median annual earnings

(thousands of 1994 dollars)

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition

of Education, 1995; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, March Current

Population Survey, 1994.

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

Highest level of education completed

Grades 9

to 11

High school

diploma only

Bachelor’s degree or moreSome

college

14.0

20.9

23.4

32.7

7.7

13.1

17.2

26.0

Male Female
■ Although the rate of college completion in the

United States still far exceeds that in most other

countries, educational attainment generally is

increasing more slowly in the United States than

in other industrialized countries.

In each of the G–7 countries, the rate of secondary school completion is higher among 25- to 34-year-olds than among 25- to 64-

year-olds, indicating that the rate of secondary school completion 

9

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics, Dropout Rates in the United States: 1994; U.S. Department of

Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of

Education, 1995 and The Condition of Education, 1996; U.S. Department

of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, October and March Current

Population Surveys.

0

20

40

60

80

100

’72 ’75 ’79 ’83 ’87 ’91 ’94

Percent

Year

Completion of four or more years of college among

high school graduates 25 to 29 years old

High school completion rates

among 18- to 24-year-olds

College enrollment among

recent high school graduates

Figure E

High school completion, college enrollment,

and college completion rates: 1972–94
is increasing in these countries (figure F). Moreover, the gap

between the completion rates of younger and older workers is

larger in other G–7 countries than in the United States, suggesting

that secondary school attainment is increasing at a faster rate in the

other countries. The high school completion rates for young adults

in Japan and Germany are now comparable to those of young adults

in the United States, while the rates for young adults in Canada and

the United Kingdom are approaching those of their counterparts in

the United States.

10

0

20

40

60

80

100

Figure F

Secondary school completion, by age: 1992

Percent

NOTE: In the United States, completing secondary school is defined as graduating from high school

or earning a GED.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of

Education, 1995; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Indicators of Education’s

Systems, Digest of International Education Statistics, forthcoming.

86.5

90.6 88.6

80.9

67.1

42.4

80.8 84.0

69.7

81.9

68.1

52.2

28.4

71.3

Ages 25–64 Ages 25–34

United

States

Japan Germany United

Kingdom

France Italy Canada
Most G–7 countries still lag well behind the United States in higher

education attainment (figure G). The proportion of the population

ages 25–64 years who have completed a college education is by far

the highest in the United States. Although the U.S. lead is smaller for

adults ages 25–34 years, only Japan has a rate of higher education

attainment among young adults comparable to that in the United

States. The rate of college completion among young American adults

has risen slightly during the past 20 years, while the rate for young

adults in Japan has risen dramatically; thus, Japan has nearly caught

11

Figure G

Completion of higher education, by age: 1992

Percent

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

NOTE: In the United States, completing higher education is defined as earning a bachelor’s degree.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of

Education, 1995; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Indicators of Education’s

Systems, Digest of International Education Statistics, forthcoming.

Ages 25–64 Ages 25–34

United

States

Japan Germany United

Kingdom

France Italy Canada

23.6

13.3

11.6 10.7 10.2

6.4

15.0

23.2 22.9

11.8 12.5 12.3

6.8

16.1
up to the United States. The rate of higher education attainment in

most other G–7 countries has increased more slowly than that in

Japan, as indicated by the smaller attainment gaps between younger

and older adults in those countries.

Educational Achievement

■ Workers who have a record of high academic

achievement, as measured by achievement test

scores, are unemployed less and earn more than

workers with lower scores.

12

Figure H

Unemployment rate of civilian workers age 28 years,

by age-adjusted ASVAB score quartile: 1985–93

0

3

6

9

15

12

Percent

NOTE: ASVAB is the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. To control for differences

in age at testing, individuals were assigned to age-specific performance quartiles for each

subject area based on their age at testing. Respondents who were out of the labor force were

excluded from the sample.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Longitudinal

Survey of Youth, 1985–93.

Mathematics Science Paragraph

comprehension

2.9

4.8

11.5

6.7

3.6

6.4

4.1

11.5 11.5

3.6

6.3

4.2

Top

Quartile

Second

Quartile

Third

Quartile

Bottom

Quartile
Workers who are 28 years old and who have previously scored in the

top quartile on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery

(ASVAB) mathematics, science, or paragraph comprehension tests

have a lower unemployment rate than other workers (figure H). For

example, 2.9 percent of workers in the top quartile of the mathematics

test are unemployed, compared to 7.5 percent of workers in the other

three quartiles combined. Workers in the top quartile on the tests in

each subject also earn more, on average, than other workers (figure I).

For example, workers in the top quartile on the mathematics test earn

an average of $13.50 per hour, compared to an average of $9.84 per

hour for workers in the other three quartiles combined.

13

Figure I

Mean hourly rate of pay for civilian workers age 28 years,

by age-adjusted ASVAB score quartile: 1985–93

NOTE: ASVAB is the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. Respondents reporting

hourly pay of less than $1.00 or greater than $100.00 (1992 dollars) at any given age were

excluded from the sample for that age. To control for differences in age at testing, individuals

were assigned to age-specific performance quartiles for each subject based on their age at

testing.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Longitudinal

Survey of Youth, 1985–93.

13.50

9.53

13.10

9.95

12.43

11.13

8.76

11.46

8.62

11.41

8.89

10.37

Mathematics Science Paragraph

comprehension

Top

Quartile

Second

Quartile

Third

Quartile

Bottom

Quartile

1992

dollars

$0

$3

$6

$9

$15

$12

$18
■ Test scores of U.S. students generally increased in

the 1980s and 1990s, offsetting declines that

occurred during the 1970s.

Among 17-year-old students, National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP) test scores increased from 1982 through 1992 (figure

J). Increases in mathematics and science scores reversed a trend of

declining scores that existed throughout the 1970s. By 1992, the scores

in these subjects had recovered to the 1973 levels. NAEP reading

scores of 17-year-old students have increased slowly and steadily

since the early 1970s. 

14

Scale score

Year

’69 ’72 ’76 ’80 ’84 ’88 ’92

’69 ’72 ’76 ’80 ’84 ’88 ’92

’69 ’72 ’76 ’80 ’84 ’88 ’92

Reading

Science

Mathematics

280

290

300

310

280

290

300

310

280

290

300

310

Figure J

Trends in average U.S. achievement of 17-year-olds in science,

mathematics, and reading: 1969–92

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The National

Assessment of Educational Progress: 1992 Trends in Academic Progress, 1994.
■ U.S. students trail students from many other

countries in mathematics and science achievement, but U.S. students tend to lead in reading

achievement.

Most of the countries included in a 1991 international study of

mathematics and science achievement outperformed the United

States in the mathematics achievement of both 9-year-old and 13-

year-old students (table A). With respect to science achievement,

9-year-old U.S. students performed as well as those in most other

countries, but 13-year-old U.S. students scored below their counterparts in half of the other countries. In a separate international

study of reading achievement, the United States led 20 of 22

countries in reading scores for 9-year-olds and was equivalent to

or led 21 of 22 countries for 14-year-olds.

15

Table A

International distribution of academic achievement relative to

the United States: 1991–92

Number of countries performing:

Not

Significantly significantly Significantly Number of

Subject higher than different from lower than countries

and age the U.S. the U.S. the U.S. in the study

MATHEMATICS

9-year-olds 7 2 0 10

13-year-olds 12 1 1 15

SCIENCE

9-year-olds 0 7 2 10

13-year-olds 7 6 1 15

READING

9-year-olds 1 1 20 23

14-year-olds 1 14 7 23

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The

Condition of Education, 1993; Warwick B. Elley, How in the World Do Students Read?,

International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Study of

Reading Literacy, 1992; and Educational Testing Service, International Assessment of

Educational Progress, 1992.
Adult Literacy

A 1992 study tested the performance of U.S. adults on three scales of

literacy—prose, document, and quantitative—and categorized

adults into five literacy levels according to their test scores, with

level 1 being the lowest literacy level and level 5 being the highest.

■ Workers with higher literacy scores are unemployed less and earn more than workers with lower

literacy scores.

Unemployment rates are especially high for workers in the two lowest

levels of literacy—levels 1 and 2—on each of the three literacy scales

(figure K). For these workers, the unemployment rate ranges from 12

percent for workers with level 2 quantitative literacy to nearly 20 percent for those with level 1. Unemployment rates for individuals in the

two highest literacy levels—levels 4 and 5—are less than 6 percent.

16

0

5

10

15

20

25

Prose Document Quantitative

4.2 5.0 5.2

2.7

8.4

12.9

17.1

4.9

8.8

12.5

19.9

5.6

7.9

15.4

16.9

Figure K

Unemployment of adult labor force participants,

by proficiency level on three literacy scales: 1992

Percent

unemployed

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

SOURCE: Andrew Sum, Literacy and the Labor Force: Results of the National Adult Literacy

Survey, forthcoming; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.
Workers with high literacy scores earn more than other workers, on

average (figure L). On the prose scale, for example, full-time workers in level 3 earn a mean weekly wage that is 50 percent higher

than that of their counterparts in level 1. Those in level 5 earn a

weekly wage that is 71 percent higher than the wage of those in

level 3.

■ The literacy proficiency of a substantial proportion

of the U.S. labor force is limited, and only a small

proportion of workers perform at a high literacy

level. 

Forty percent or more of the adult labor force perform at the two

lowest levels on each of the literacy scales, suggesting that many

workers lack the skills needed to interpret, integrate, and compare

or contrast information using written materials common to the

home or workplace (figure M). These workers appear to be unable 

17

Prose Document Quantitative

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

Figure L

Mean weekly earnings of full-time workers,

by proficiency level on three literacy scales: 1992

Mean weekly

earnings

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

SOURCE: Andrew Sum, Literacy and the Labor Force: Results of the National Adult Literacy

Survey, forthcoming; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

355

436

531

709

910

355

458

553

710

807

438

533

684

913

330
to perform the types of tasks typical of certain occupations that

demand high skills, such as professional, managerial, technical,

high-level sales, skilled clerical, or craft and precision production

occupations. Five percent or fewer of U.S. labor force participants

score in the highest proficiency levels, demonstrating an ability to

perform well on a wide array of literacy tasks.

■ Literacy of the U.S. adult population is, on average,

roughly similar to that of populations in other industrialized countries, but the United States has a greater

proportion of adults at the lowest literacy levels.

On average, the proportion of the U.S. population in the highest literacy levels is similar to that in the other countries included in an international study of adult literacy (figure N). However, the United States has

a higher concentration of adults in the lowest literacy level than nearly all of the other countries. More than 20 percent of the U.S. sample 

18

Figure M

Percentage of labor force in each proficiency level

on the three literacy scales: 1992

Percent

0

20

30

40

50

10

25.3

14.4

35.2

4.2

27.2

15.8

34.6

19.0

3.4

24.5

15.2

34.5

20.8

5.0

Prose Document Quantitative

20.8

SOURCE: Andrew Sum, Literacy and the Labor Force: Results of the National Adult

Literacy Survey, forthcoming; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
19

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and Statistics Canada, Literacy,

Economy and Society: Results of the First International Adult Literacy Survey, 1995.

Figure N

Estimated percentage of the population in each proficiency level on

three adult literacy scales, by selected countries: 1994

PROSE LITERACY

DOCUMENT LITERACY

QUANTITATIVE LITERACY

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4/5

Percent

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Switzerland (German)

Switzerland (French)

Sweden

Poland

Netherlands

Germany

Canada

United States

Switzerland (German)

Switzerland (French)

Sweden

Poland

Netherlands

Germany

Canada

United States

Switzerland (German)

Switzerland (French)

Sweden

Poland

Netherlands

Germany

Canada

United States
scored at the lowest literacy level on each of the three literacy scales,

while the other countries (except Poland) had less than 20 percent of

the sampled population scoring at the lowest level on each scale.

TRAINING OF LABOR FORCE

PARTICIPANTS

Workers usually complete their formal education before joining the

labor force, but investment in human capital does not necessarily

end at that time. Through training, many workers continue to

improve their skills throughout their lives.

■ Workers who have participated in training while at

their current job earn more than workers who have

not participated in training.

20

Figure O

Median weekly earnings of full-time workers ages 16 years and older,

by training status and educational attainment: January 1991

NOTE: Includes only workers who needed no qualifying training for their current job.

SOURCE: Alan Eck, “Job-Related Education and Training: Their Impact on Earnings,” Monthly

Labor Review (October 1993): 21–38; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,

Current Population Survey, January 1991.

$0 $200 $400 $600 $800

263

314

353

461

601

471

396

333 Workers who participated in training since

start of job

Workers who did not

participate in training

since start of job

Fewer than

12 years

High school

graduate

1 to 3 years

of college

College

graduate

Highest education

level completed

Median weekly earnings
Within broad categories of educational attainment, median earnings in 1991 were higher for workers who participated in training

to improve their skills while at their current job than for those

workers who did not (figure O). Median weekly earnings were

higher for trainees than for nontrainees in each of the educational

attainment categories. Studies that examine direct measures of productivity confirm that formal training also has a positive effect on

productivity.

■ Training participation has increased in recent

years, and it is most prevalent among more highly educated workers and workers in highly skilled

occupations.

An estimated 41 percent of the U.S. work force in 1991 had

received skill improvement training on their current job, up from

35 percent in 1983 (figure P). Training is positively associated

with education—61 percent of workers with a college degree in

1991 had participated in training on their current job, compared

with 29 percent of workers with a high school degree or less and

46 percent of workers with some college. Training also appears to

be more common among workers in highly skilled occupations,

including managerial, professional, and technical workers.

Workers in these occupations in 1991 had training rates of more

than 50 percent. In contrast, no other occupation had a training

rate of more than 40 percent at that time.

21
22

0 20 40 60 80 100

OCCUPATION

HIGHEST GRADE COMPLETED

College graduate

Some college

High school or less

All workers

Handlers, cleaners,

and laborers

Transportation and

material moving

Machine operators,

assemblers, and inspectors

Precision production,

craft, and repair

Farming, forestry,

and fishing

Service

Private household

Administrative

 support

Sales

Technical

Professional

Executive,

administrative, managerial

1983

1991

41

35

6

29

21

38

25

15

59

67

53

46

61

35

40

29

25

Figure P

All workers ages 16 years and older who participated in

skill improvement training while on their current jobs,

 by education and occupation: 1983 and 1991

(percentage of workers in each category)

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, How Workers Get Their

Training: A 1991 Update, 1992; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,

Current Population Survey, January 1983 and 1991.

Percent
SUMMARY

Workers in the United States are still more productive, on average,

than workers in any other country. However, worker productivity

in several industrialized countries is gradually catching up to that in

the United States, and eventually the United States is likely to share

the lead in worker productivity. This convergence in productivity is

attributable, in part, to the rapid expansion of education in other

countries. The education of the work force, according to at least

some measures that contribute to economic success, is growing

more rapidly in other countries than in the United States. But education is not the only determinant of worker productivity, and other

factors no doubt have also played important roles in the rapid productivity growth in other countries.

Although the United States leads almost every other industrialized

country in college attainment, and the academic achievement of U.S.

students has been improving in recent years, U.S. students still tend

to lag behind students in other countries with respect to some measures of achievement. In particular, the mathematics and science

scores of U.S. students, especially older students, are lower than

those of their counterparts in other industrialized countries. U.S.

students do, however, perform relatively well on reading tests.

Adults in the United States may not be as skilled in some areas as

their counterparts in other countries. Compared to other countries

that have tested literacy, the United States has a higher concentration of adults who score at the lowest literacy levels.

23
REFERENCES

1Moses Abramovitz, “Catching Up, Forging Ahead, and Falling Behind,”

Journal of Economic History 46 (June 1986): 385–406.

2U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Composition and

U.S. Productivity Growth, 1948–90, Bulletin 2426 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1993); Dale W. Jorgenson, “The Contribution of

Education to U.S. Economic Growth, 1948–73,” in ed. E. Dean, Education and

Economic Productivity (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1984); Edward F. Denison,

Accounting for Slower Economic Growth: The United States in the 1970s

(Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute, 1979); and Jong-Il Kim and Lawrence

Lau, “Human Capital and Aggregate Productivity: Some Empirical Evidence

from the Group-of-Five Countries,” unpublished paper (Palo Alto, CA:

Stanford University, 1992).

3U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Composition and

U.S. Productivity Growth, 1948–90, Bulletin 2426 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1993).

24
ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO NCES AND

OTHER INFORMATION

NCES constituents with access to the Internet can tap a rich collection of education-related information at the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) public

Gopher/FTP/World Wide Web site, including:

• announcements of new publications and data sets

• descriptions of NCES and ED programs

• statistical tables, charts, and data sets

• press releases

• general information about the Department

• searchable ED staff directory

• funding opportunities

• event calendars

• directories of effective programs

• directory of education-related information centers

• research findings and synthesis

• full-text publications for teachers, parents, and researchers

• pointers to public Internet resources at R&D Centers, Regional 

Laboratories, ERIC Clearinghouses, and other ED-funded institutions.

They can access the information by using:

A Gopher client, gopher.ed.gov or select North America-->U.S. Department

of Education. From the main gopher menu, NCES-produced information is

available under Educational Research, Improvement and Statistics (OERI &

NCES)/National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)/.

An FTP client, ftp to ftp.ed.gov, log on anonymous.

A World Wide Web client such as NCSA Mosaic or Lynx, point to

URL=http://www.ed.gov/ or http://www.ed.gov/NCES

Dial-in users can access much of the same information through the OERI

Toll-Free Electronic Bulletin Board, which provides on-line access to statistical data, research findings, information about Department of Education programs, and, in some cases, full texts of departmental documents. Computer

users can retrieve this information at any hour using a modem (at speeds up

to 14,400 baud) and calling (800) 222-4922. Local direct, call (202) 219-1511.

25