Another problem is that employers are requiring more formal education for jobs that had traditionally been learned on the job. For example, hotels used to promote staff through the ranks with in-house training; now some chains require a four-year degree in hotel management.
Over-specialization of job requirements also limits the supply of available workers, thus driving up the cost. See my article "Tech staff shortage", a different perspective on the so-called tech staff shortage that was claimed during the .com boom.
While reading about the need for long-range goals of students to meet these new requirements, I thought about how we try to stimulate a result with tests rather than work from the beginning with encouraging interest in general. For example, rather than test for reading ability with teachers teaching to the test, why don't we spend more effort encouraging students to read in the first place?
I sent the following letter to the Duluth News Tribune on July 24, 2005. I do not remember if it was published.
Which is more responsible for improvement in reading scores – President George W. Bush and his No Child Left Behind Act or J. K. Rowling and her “Harry Potter” series? Often it is the indirect influence that works better than the direct action. I would say engaging literature children want to read improves reading ability far more than testing of reading ability. If such is true, then well-stocked school and public libraries would improve reading far more than merit pay, mandated tests, and a whole array of top-down mandates.
