Let's create a demand side education system

Because in America we believe that everyone should have equal opportunities, we have developed a supply-side education system. The results have been that we have severely limited the opportunities for many who graduate from the school system with no marketable skills or don't graduate at all. Yet, there are many high paying skilled jobs that go unfilled or under-filled, thus hurting our economy. If tax dollars are to be used for education, the outcomes should support both the student and our society as a whole. Switching or secondary education system to a demand orientation would accomplish this.

As I write this blog, I am sailing across the Chesapeake Bay on my way to the mouth of the Potomac and ultimately on to Washington DC. We just passed an area known as The Old Hannibal, a navy bombing practice area. The target ship has undergone decades of bombing and strafing and it is a rusted out and pot-marked wreck. That's akin to what has happened to our education system as local, state and federal legislators have taken shots at it. It's time we step back and consider more fundamental reforms than just tweaking curriculum and standardizing testing.

Many things in our society are designed for a post-world-war time when pent up demand and an expanding population could consume just about anything of any quality that was made available. That supply driven model eventually led to the near collapse of our automotive industry. It is continuing to impact not just industrial consumption, but social programs, economic programs and education.

The 1998 Workforce Investment Act took a step in the right direction by beginning a process of converting our national unemployment system from one that dealt primarily with the needs of those out of work (supply side) to one that dealt with meeting the workforce needs of employers. Unemployment offices became Career Links and discussion moved from jobless issues to workforce development. This demand side approach does more for the unemployed by focusing on the needs of business. It helps the unemployed to develop skills so that he or she may become and remain employed. It helps incumbent workers to improve skills so that they may advance and create entry level openings for new and lesser-skilled workers.

You won't find the new workforce system paying for training of cosmetologists because supply already outstrips demand. Yet, you will find the public secondary education system turning out far more cosmetology majors than our economy can use. What you will find is the new workforce system paying for training of industrial maintenance technicians, because even in this time of 10% unemployment, there is demand for them, as most packagers know. But despite this demand, projected to get higher as time goes on, the secondary school system doing such a terrible job of recruiting and preparing bright people for these gold-collar jobs.

Our school system sends far too many students to college liberal arts programs. Of those starting such programs, in my state, only one third can complete their program in the allotted 4 years and almost half never complete any program of study at all. It would be far better to have for a student to graduate from a technical school or community college with a marketable skill than to drop out of a 4 year college or graduate from a university with no marketable skills. Why should our tax dollars continue to support this supply-side education approach?

I would propose that, through the eighth grade, all students be taught general reading, writing, arithmetic, science, history, art, etc. as their primary education. The Amish seem to know that after completing the eighth grade it is time to focus on a useful vocation. At the conclusion of eighth grade, students would compete for slots in various curriculum areas that would be allocated by projected demand in the economy. If there are 50 cosmetology slots and 100 applicants, the 50 students that best meet the requirements for the program would be admitted. All students would work toward an occupational goal. If that goal later changes, that would be ok. If innovation occurs at intersections of knowledge, as I have often asserted in this column, then changing ones goal might foster innovation.

Some will claim that this is a plan that limits the student's individual freedom. I disagree. This is a plan that empowers both the student and our society to achieve. As tax payers, we should demand that our system of secondary education prepare students for opportunities that actually exist. Demand-side education would be a great step forward for students and for American society.

TrackBack

Comments Post a comment (If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.) Name: Email Address: URL: Remember personal info? Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style) Type the word 'packaging' (required):