Return-Path: <nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e7AJSwP25211; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 15:28:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 15:28:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <399301A0.E4A0C0FB@earthlink.net> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Alec Levenson <aleclevenson@earthlink.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-WORKPLACE:3665] Re: Tom Sticht Research Note (Long) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (WinNT; U) Status: O Content-Length: 4735 Lines: 83 I would like to second the comments below and add my own. I agree with Tom's general thrust that policy should be research based. As an academic researcher I am keenly aware that too much policy is designed on the basis of anecdote. However I think in this case the conclusions he reaches are far too strong in light of the limited scientific evidence available. There is a big difference between the skills needed to do a job at a minimal level versus those needed to perform at a high level of productivity. Analyzing the minimal skills needed to do existing jobs tells you very little about how businesses would respond if a larger pool of high-functioning (i.e. high levels of basic skills) workers were available. Indeed, my own, albeit case-based, research suggests that businesses do indeed want workers with higher skills, even for jobs that are currently filled by low-functioning workers. Moreover, the trend among many jobs is toward greater levels of responsibility and customer interaction, requiring a greater mastery of basic skills than before. Unfortunately there is scant nationally representative data available to support this position. But that doesn't negate it, as Tom seeks to do. We can all agree that the jury is out. But more importantly, if the workers that businesses say they need (which they are doing quite vocally) never materialize, Tom's vision will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Businesses will have no choice but to limit the skills for a particular job according to the pool of available workers. I also believe that Tom's citation of the number of jobs "requiring" advanced degrees relative to the number of new workers with advanced degrees is not relevant. As we all know too well, degree attainment is not equivalent to mastery of skills: the large number of high school graduates who function at elementary grade levels of basic skills is proof positive. Indeed, it is this population that should be (and is) the focus of adult ed and workplace literacy efforts. It is an enormous task to try to bring the entire U.S. adult population of low-functioning high school dropouts and high school graduates up to a 12th grade level (or NALS level 3 -- you choose). Whether they subsequently attain advanced degrees or try for jobs that require said degrees is another matter entirely. Counting the number of jobs requiring advanced degrees tells us nothing about the economic return to boosing basic skills for those with a high school degree or less. In conclusion, I would hope that no one reading Tom's report would conclude that their efforts to improve worker's basic skills will have little or no labor market impact. A long body of economic literature shows that there is a high economic return to attaining advanced education and skills. Critics have frequently countered that literature by pointing to examples where particular individuals or examples don't fit that "rule". Of course there will always be exceptions because high skill levels don't guarantee labor market success. But such critiques ignore the fact that high levels of basic skills are needed to qualify for the vast majority of high paying jobs in the U.S. economy. -- Alec Levenson, Ph.D. 1999-2000 NIFL Literacy Leader Fellow Center for Effective Organizations Marshall School of Business University of Southern California and Milken Institute aleclevenson@earthlink.net -- GSpan1@aol.com wrote: > Tom, > The research you cite seems not to take note of what many individual > companies are saying about the internal realities of their own workplaces. > The potential for misusing this information is tremendous and even > frightening--even though we need to be aware of changing reality. However, > even if it is true (I'm not convinced) that the workplace in general can now > (and in the future?) accommodate more people with low-level basic skills than > we have previously thought, surely no one should conclude -- research and > analysis notwithstanding -- that persons holding those lower level jobs > should be stuck at that unrewarded and often unrewarding level. And I can't > help wondering if these research findings apply more to big companies than to > small businesses. I bet they do. A caring and democratic society should > strive as a matter of regular public policy to lift up all of its people and > give everyone an equal opportunity to succeed--which view I know you share. > And, of course, functional literacy is a pre-requisite. One question this > whole line of research raises for me is whether we were wise to have let the > National Literacy Act expire and to have put all our literacy eggs into one > WIA basket. The beat goes on... Cheers :-) Gail S
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:42:40 EST