Comment by randusername

I see this take a lot, that education serves the economy and therefore bold changes are needed to curriculum to keep pace with the changing economy. Yes, the needs of the economy shape the incentives the state places on education, but the bureaucrats aren't personally doing the educating. Many teachers have no alternate employment history and the economy does not especially value teachers; I would argue it is inevitable that teachers would decouple the meaning of their work from serving the economy.

But I think this is a good thing.

Yes, the goal of shop class was manufacturing competency, but it was probably taught by someone that extolled craftsmanship and attention-to-detail rather than drilling efficiency. A hobbyist wood-worker, not a retired factory foreman. The former approach would clearly have been more transferrable and less brittle.

So I think instilling adaptability is already pretty well baked-in to how most teachers automatically push students towards higher-level skills and meaning instead of tightly coupling to policy mandates.