1. FrayVader - April 11, 1998 - 10:24 PM PDT</B>
Sometimes it seems that half the people posting in the Fray are either leading university professors or brilliant grad students. And they all seem to have an opinion on everything (besides having far too much time on their hands).
What do you think about issues affecting higher education in America. Are things heading in the right direction? Are educators paid enough? or too much? Is there not enough emphasis on actual teaching? Are students getting brighter? Are costs too high? Take your place at the front of the lecture hall and tell it like it is.
2. CalGal - April 11, 1998 - 10:26 PM PDT</B>
My heavens, we have Race AND Education back.
Did everyone save all their old posts?
3. cigarlaw - April 11, 1998 - 10:38 PM PDT</B>
CalGal: I didn't and I really do not want to type them again. This must be the fraygod's perverted sense of humor at work.
4. TheCatintheHat - April 12, 1998 - 3:18 AM PDT</B>
Half the posters to the Fray are brilliant? Ok, I'm paraphrasing a bit, but if that were anywhere near true I might have learned something here by now ...
5. Msivorytower - April 12, 1998 - 9:45 AM PDT</B>
Well, I certainly wouldn't say that half are brilliant, but certainly some need to take notes. Cats are particularly poor at paying attention in class, it seems.
6. Msivorytower - April 12, 1998 - 9:52 AM PDT</B>
Btw, I thought Krugman's article was accruate, and interesting to boot. His description of the 70's and 80's activity in the field of economics was a "home-run", to use his catch-all.
I doubt universities will now engage in a bidding war for star academics, over and above what already occurs. Financial consequences alone will prevent much of that sort of behavior, although private institutions are better poised for upping the antie more than public ones are.
Top public universities are in decline because of the high costs of running such massive comprehensive program offerings and trying to maintain standing as Research 1 institutions. Every state has engaged in large reductions in funding their flagship institutions, as legislatures have demanded more accountability, lost patience with how much money it takes to maintain a top university, and focused it's attention on expanding two-year institutions and their programs.
7. Msivorytower - April 12, 1998 - 9:52 AM PDT</B>
sheesh
That's accurate, folks. And I am not even dyslexic.
8. TheCatintheHat - April 12, 1998 - 3:22 PM PDT</B>
I'm glad you're not dyslexic, but what the hell is an antie?
9. Msivorytower - April 12, 1998 - 5:02 PM PDT</B>
It's an ante with a twist.
10. TheCatintheHat - April 12, 1998 - 5:04 PM PDT</B>
Oh, ok, thought it might be something in Ross Perot's basement.
==):-)
11. resonance - April 12, 1998 - 11:32 PM PDT</B>
Education is one of the very few areas -- no, I think it's safe to say that it's the only area -- where I believe the government should raise funding by a staggering amount. Of course, I'm biased.
12. Sasquatch - April 13, 1998 - 12:21 PM PDT</B>
Sasquatch notes with some interest that in the opening missive, "FrayVadar" did not see fit to even mention the article(s) this thread discussion group is claimed to be tied to. Sasquatch wonders if this phenomenon is indicative of the Slate Fray as a whole.
13. Msivorytower - April 13, 1998 - 7:16 PM PDT</B>
I see this thread is a rousing success.
Pity, there are many interesting issues wrt higher education. For instance, should the state continue to fund it? How many HE's are feasible to maintain by a state at each level of quality (Research I, II, Comprehensive, Liberal Arts, etc).
Are community colleges becoming the dominant form of vocational training in this country? And if so, should we eliminate all voc ed from K-12 and move it completely to the post-secondary level (say yes, please)?
Then there is the great Bloom debate. Has HE in this country become a toilet, allowing students to bastardize their educations by taking a potpouri of classes and never really getting any depth of knowledge?
What about the need for a common core of knowledge that we expect all college students to have mastery over? And speaking of mastery, does that mean we should begin instituting exit exams in all fields? Require a comprehensive exam of all the core subjects we think basic to an educated person?
14. Sasquatch - April 13, 1998 - 7:44 PM PDT</B>
"Are community colleges becoming the dominant form of vocational training in this country? And if so, should we eliminate all voc ed from K-12 and move it completely to the post-secondary level (say yes, please)?"
Sasquatch is sorry, but the response must be "No". There are two main reasons for this response. The first is the cost of the secondary education. While the cost may not be too high in relation to full collages and universities, the cost can be more than a family can afford in some instances. If the education can be given to poor families in High School with little or no additional cost to tax payers, again in relative numbers, then there is no harm in allowing that education to take place in High School.
The second reason for the response is some young people simply do not have the time to attend another two years of school after graduation. These young people must start work immediately due to the wealth of the family. Most noteably, the lack thereof. So, if work must begin immediately for some human youngsters, logic dictates giving the High School students all the education needed before graduation is a must.
15. CalGal - April 13, 1998 - 8:02 PM PDT</B>
Here is an interesting column by George Will about a proposal to end high school.
"Now comes Leon Botstein with a radical argument for abolishing the high school as we know it. He argues that puberty is not what it once was, therefore high schools should not be what they have been since taking their current form about 100 years ago.
Botstein, 51, has seen many products of America's high schools. He has the longest tenure among current presidents of major colleges. He has been president of Bard College since 1975. At age 23 he became the youngest college president in American history. He is musical director of the American Symphony Orchestra in New York and editor of the Musical Quarterly. In his spare time he has written a book-length manifesto, 'Jefferson's Children: Education and the Promise of American Culture,' the third chapter of which ar gues that the American high school is 'obsolete.'
The problem, Botstein says, is that the high school was created for 15- to 18-year-olds who were still children, just approaching the brink of adulthood. Today people that age are, physiologically and psychologically, young adults who pose a teaching problem that the traditional high school cannot solve.
…
As a result, he says, educational practices no longer correspond to the freedoms and habits of young people's development. This is particularly so in today's adolescent culture, where money -- meaning shopping -- and ease of travel facilitate the young person's 'self-declaration of independence.'
cont'd.
16. CalGal - April 13, 1998 - 8:02 PM PDT</B>
Thus 'today's first-year college students have lived the external appearances of an adult life for many more years than their counterparts 50 years ago did.' Therefore, 'what we have traditionally associated with the intellectual awakening during the college years must now occur in the high school.'
…
Botstein believes that 'linking learning to life in age-appropriate ways' requires 'treating adolescents as young as 13 and 14 more the way we do college students and adults and less as children.' Actually, he wants to abolish junior high and he wants students in high school -- which he would end at 10th grade -- treated better than college students often are, with classes, including many seminars, that are smaller than those in grade school."
I don't think we can possibly re-engineer our highschools like this. But the ideas about teenagers and what should be expected of them are interesting.
17. Msivorytower - April 14, 1998 - 10:33 AM PDT</B>
Sasquash says;
"The first is the cost of the secondary education."
Do you mean post-secondary here? One doesn't quite know what you are talking about otherwise.
"If the education can be given to poor families in High School with little or no additional cost to tax payers, again in relative numbers, then there is no harm in allowing that education to take place in High School."
Well, of course, this is the issue, the additional costs of vocational education programs relative to the number of students it affects, particularly if we are talking about voc ed programs at the high school level that actually develop skills that increase a student's employability (over and above any other HS grad). Voc ed programs can be very costly, are often obsolete wrt the skills taught, and frequently serve as excuses for not giving minority or low income students access to a solid general education. It becomes another holding tank for kids that traditionally dropped out of school, without really improving their employability or their general educational level.
Secondly, the kind of vocational programs that really lead to better employment possibilities now are very technical in nature, or require very sophisticated machinery, intensive training, etc, all of which are better suited to the community college level. Why? Because in recent years (say the last 15) CC's have formed partnerships with many firms and developed joint training programs,where the firm provides an apprenticeship learning environment, and the CC oversee's the added courses and technical skill training needed to compliment the student's hand's on experience.
I'd rather vocational education move entirely to the community college level and subsidize low income students access to those programs, ie, give them outright grants that pay their tuition and living expenses.
18. Msivorytower - April 14, 1998 - 10:47 AM PDT</B>
Calgal
Botstein gets one thing right, and the rest is, well, I will be nice and not say it. He is correct that students lives have changed significantly over the last 100 years, and that high schools need to re-think what they are doing. However, he is wrong about the student of 100 years ago versus today. Historically, youths of 15 to 18 had much greater responsibilities, economic, social and community wise, than youths of this age today.
One could just as persuasively argue that students today lack a sense of purpose and direction that their ancestors (in the high school) had, and that they are essentially cut adrift from any meaningful connection to the larger community.
This has nothing to do with puberty and everything to do with the changing nature of life from rural to urban, from industrial to post-industrial, from manufacturing to service dominant work, and with the systematic marginalization of youth from economic and community life. In 1890 few young men of 16 were thought to be a immature buffoons, who spent their time playing. They worked, they had chores, they had responsibilities to the family and to the community, none of which we demand of youth today, except for those from low-income backgrounds.
Botstein simply doesn't know what he is talking about.
19. Sasquatch - April 14, 1998 - 10:52 AM PDT</B>
Sasquatch asks forgiveness from "Msivorytower" for using incorrect terminology. Yes, Sasquatch was referring to "post-secondary education".
To the points at hand, Sasquatch would like to comment on the "the additional costs of vocational education programs relative to the number of students it affects, particularly if we are talking about voc ed programs at the high school level that actually develop skills that increase a student's employability (over and above any other HS grad)." statement. Keep in mind, Vocational education is a primary need in poorer and more rural states. States with a manual labor intensive job market necessitate that those skills be learned at least partly before the employment takes place. In states where the case is different, then the vocational education should obviously be phased out if the local board deems it a necessity.
"It becomes another holding tank for kids that traditionally dropped out of school, without really improving their employability or their general educational level."
Sasquatch seriously doubts the above statement. In poorer states, vocational education is looked at as a requirement for many students who may not be the "bookish" type. Those students that work better with their hands than their minds excel in vocational education and go on to work in productive education. Not every young human has dreams of working in an office, "Msivorytower".
Sasquatch will continue in the next missive.
20. Sasquatch - April 14, 1998 - 11:01 AM PDT</B>
Sasquatch continues...
"Secondly, the kind of vocational programs that really lead to better employment possibilities now are very technical in nature, or require very sophisticated machinery, intensive training, etc, all of which are better suited to the community college level."
Not necessarily, "Msivorytower". Many companies need manual laborers to start out with and then work upwards as experience is gained. Many skills can not be gained in a classroom, however distasteful teachers such as "Msivorytower" may find the idea.
"I'd rather vocational education move entirely to the community college level and subsidize low income students access to those programs, ie, give them outright grants that pay their tuition and living expenses."
This idea would be nice, "Msivorytower", but isn't the case all of the time. Some students graduate with families to support. Sometimes that family is the student's own parents or children that belong to the student. In these cases, which are plenty, the student needs to be immediately employable without spending another two years in an Community College.
For the above reasons, vocational education should stay in High School for states that deem it necessary.
21. norwoodr - April 14, 1998 - 11:11 AM PDT</B>
Anyone who thinks High School kids are grown up doesn't have kids in high school. They are great kids, but they are as self-centered and impulsive and in need of guidence as teen-agers of any generation. I've had the great pleasure over the past few years of watching my own boys in high school mature from kids who's primary motivation is pleasing adults to young adults who are beginning to be motivated by a desire to build a life for themselves. They are smart and generally well behaved. Are they ready for the freedom and responsibility of college? They are not.
www.io.com/~norwoodr
22. Msivorytower - April 14, 1998 - 11:16 AM PDT</B>
Sasquash
Me: "It becomes another holding tank for kids that traditionally dropped out of school, without really improving their employability or their general educational level."
You: "Sasquatch seriously doubts the above statement"
It has long been recognized that vocational education is simply another vehicle to track students whom school personnel think have limited abilities. You may doubt this, but several tracking studies have shown it. (See Jeannie Oakes {1985} much cited study _Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality_ for an example of this work.)
WRT the economic returns to vocational education at the secondary level, this has been somewhat controversial. A 1969 study by Hu, Lee, Stromsdorfer and Kaufman compared the returns to a vocational track in high school to an academic track for three large cities. They came up with an IROR (internal rate of return) of about 57%. Later, however, there was some question as to whether all costs to the vocational track were actually included (which is a serious flaw, methodologically).
Two other studies emerging at about the same time came up with significantly lower IROR's for Worchester, MA (Corazzini, 1968), and NYC (Taussig, 1968). Both of these studies suggested that the extra costs of vocational education are generally not fully covered by the additional estimated benefits. These findings were supported in a later study by Rumberger and Daymont (1984), who found no systematic advantages related to a particular type of high school curriculum, including vocational education, which involves higher costs, for students who acquire no addtional postsecondary training. The data they used was the NLS High School Class of 1972, a national survey developed and maintained by NCES.
con't
23. Msivorytower - April 14, 1998 - 11:16 AM PDT</B>
Finally, Bishop (1989) did a recent survey of the returns to secondary vocational education, and found the following:
1) There are positive earnings differentials between vocational and nonvocational graduates *only* when the vocational graduates obtain jobs that are related to their training.
2) There is no evidence that vocational education either increases or decreases non-economic benefits relative to a general curriculum.
3) Vocational education appears to reduce the high-school dropout rate.
24. rickc2000 - April 14, 1998 - 11:19 AM PDT</B>
MsIt; "Are community colleges becoming the dominant form of vocational training in this country? And if so, should we eliminate all voc ed from K-12 and move it completely to the post-secondary level"
I agree with you. The type of vocational training for the emerging job market will require skills not taught in high school voc-ed classes. Even in poor and/ or rural areas. Training for line manufacturing type jobs is inappropriate because it trains for yesterdays jobs and keeps those thus trained from being competitive if the comtemporary job market.
"What about the need for a common core of knowledge that we expect all college students to have mastery over? And speaking of mastery, does that mean we should begin instituting exit exams in all fields? Require a comprehensive exam of all the core subjects we think basic to an educated person?"
Yes yes yes yes yes.... Please!!! I for one think there is a need for this. Actually I am concerned that 4 year schools are just becoming big vocational schools themselves. People need to learn who they are (in the big picture sense) and how to think (the process not the content) before they start their vocational training. I am a big fan of a liberal arts education.
25. Msivorytower - April 14, 1998 - 11:23 AM PDT</B>
Sasquash says
"Many companies need manual laborers to start out with and then work upwards as experience is gained."
Well, that may be true, but it's doubtful that vocational education programs can contribute to this level of skill training. Do you have some data to support the relationship between voc ed programs and the need for manual laborers in *many* firms?
Precisely what type of vocational education is required to meet these sorts of skill requirements?
Btw, I'm not in the least opposed to students getting apprenticeship training during the high school years, but not as a supplant to a regular high school curriculum.
The sasquash seems to be a tad sarcastic these days. I didn't know it was able to personalize to such an extent. Perhaps it's becoming more *human* by hanging around the fray.
26. norwoodr - April 14, 1998 - 11:30 AM PDT</B>
In your cost/benefit analysis of vocational education, do you take into account the cost of imprisoning the students not taught a trade?
Actually, the vocational skills most needed may be the skills least taught. The major skills needed are the ability to communicate with others, to keep your temper, to show up for work on time every day clean and sober, whether you feel like it or not.
On the other hand, anyone with a skill can get a good job. Have you tried to hire a plumber, lately.
You want kids to learn to know themselves and to think. All very well. But the current schools often don't teach them reading, writing, and arithmetic. How they gonna think?
www.io.com/~norwoodr
27. Msivorytower - April 14, 1998 - 11:30 AM PDT</B>
Rick
I have to admit the idea of exit exams for college students is becoming increasingly interesting to me as well, and for similar reasons.
Btw, many educators (outside of vocational education) think that vocational education at the high school level does more harm than good these days, and that the real action is at the community college level, particularly because of the increasing technical nature of most manufacturing and semi-skilled work these days.
28. Msivorytower - April 14, 1998 - 11:34 AM PDT</B>
Norwood
"In your cost/benefit analysis of vocational education, do you take into account the cost of imprisoning the students not taught a trade?"
First, vocational education programs at the high school level no longer teach a *trade* (if they ever did in the first place). Second, to the extent that those in vocational education programs would otherwise be out robbing you blind, why, the researchers usually do adjust for this.
However, I should point out to you that the majority of students in vocational education programs are not *potential* or future felons. I really find that a very idiotic comment.
29. norwoodr - April 14, 1998 - 12:28 PM PDT</B>
Msivorytower
I don't have the statistics at my fingertips, but something like 80% of the people in prison are functionally illiterate. My point, idiotic or not, was that it is better to educate students, vocationally or otherwise, than to lock up those who turn to crime. Don't you see a relationship between the poor educational system in the US and the high crime rate?
Here's a tidbit from the May Scientific American: "Results from the latest and most comprehensive comparison of education in 23 nations showed that American high school seniors fall further behind their foreign counterparts than anyone thought. In tests of general mathematics, students from only two nations--Cyprus and South Africa--fared worse than U.S. 12th graders. And no country performed more poorly in tests of advanced mathematics and physics."
www.io.com/~norwoodr
30. Msivorytower - April 14, 1998 - 12:38 PM PDT</B>
Norwood
How about lining your ducks in order.
Vocational education does nothing to address the performance of students in the US on international achievement comparisons. In fact, that is one of the reasons I'd like to see vocational education eliminated from high schools, so that *more* time would be spent on basic academic skills.
Secondly, that a high percentage of felons are illiterate speaks to the need to focus, again, on academic skills and development. It suggests that we don't do a good enough job in providing all children access to a quality educational experience, and in providing all children access to the knowledge necessary to become fully functional in this society.
If your comment was meant to convey that vocational education creates more literate graduates than would otherwise be the case, why, it wasn't well made. In addition, I would challenge the notion that vocational education actually builds reading and mathematical skills, in general. You are free to make a different case, however.
31. ChristinO - April 14, 1998 - 12:45 PM PDT</B>
I've taken my share of "filler" and crap courses in the history of my schooling, but none of them by choice. I was always amazed at certain classes that you could actually get credit for. Dumbfounded that one would be required to take PE which had nothing to do with learning nutrition and health and everything to do with hanging out in the gym being forced to play basketball no matter that you'd signed up for archery because that's what "Coach" felt like watching you do. I missed a lot of the poorer education my high-school had to offer by being in the Magnet program, but if there was lousy education to be had in my town you can bet we were dishing it out-------- we were essentially the "inner-city" school which is why the Magnet program was located there. The magnet program made the books look good as far as how much money the school got and spent on education, but that money was pretty highly concentrated.
I recall that there was a woodshop and metalshop as well as "Home Ec" but I'm fairly unclear on what exactly is meant by vocational education. None of the guys in woodshop was training to be a carpenter. I never saw anything that anyone ever made in metalshop and why in the world would you spend an hour of education on teaching someone to cook unless it was short-order or gourmet? The only class I can think of that would have helped anyone get a job was typing-----------I mean apart from being educated in general.
SASQUATCH: What states exactly are you talking about when you talk about manual labor? What kind of manual labor are you talking about?
32. Msivorytower - April 14, 1998 - 12:51 PM PDT</B>
Christin,
Exactly.
Btw, I think the animal has gone into hiding.
33. ChristinO - April 14, 1998 - 12:59 PM PDT</B>
Sasquatch: A note on the cost of Community College. From what I've seen the cost is between $30 and $80 a semester-----hardly exorbitant even for most poor families. The advantage of CC is that its classes are scheduled so that people who work can still attend.
34. ChristinO - April 14, 1998 - 1:01 PM PDT</B>
Hiya KT! I'm off to lunch myself for a bit. Hope I see you when I get back.
35. norwoodr - April 14, 1998 - 1:07 PM PDT</B>
Msivorytower
I think we agree. I may have made my point badly. More education is a good thing.
www.io.com/~norwoodr
36. Sasquatch - April 14, 1998 - 1:25 PM PDT</B>
Sasquatch hopes "Msivorytower" has not been offended by the "sarcasm" displayed by Sasquatch. Sasquatch was just being playful.
The Point of Sasquatch is not that the rate of return of the school system is significantly higher with a vocational track than without one. The Point is the added costs are not relatively extreme and can and do have very positive effects upon the students. Sasquatch has also not argued that vocational education makes a student who takes the classes involved a better all around student. Granted, it gives the student a somewhat narrow set of skills. The skills gained are very useful to that student if that is what the student wishes to pursue. Sasquatch is leery of forcing students into an "accepted" career and learning path as determined by a faceless bureaucrat.
"Precisely what type of vocational education is required to meet these sorts of skill requirements?"
Sasquatch thinks the skill set would not tend to be static for any location other than given a small geographical area, so that question is impossible to answer for a country wide consideration. Some possibilities are car repair, construction work, assembly line work, general maintenance, etc etc. Yes, High Schools can not and will not provide the complete education needed for the jobs listed, but High School can give an employer something to work with. Isn't that the idea of school?
"Btw, I'm not in the least opposed to students getting apprenticeship training during the high school years, but not as a supplant to a regular high school curriculum."
Sasquatch agrees, but it was "Msivorytower" who wanted vocational education out of High Schools and into Community College type schools.
37. Sasquatch - April 14, 1998 - 1:27 PM PDT</B>
Sasquatch hopes the questions of "ChristinO" from missive Message #31 were answered with the response to "Msivorytower".
38. Msivorytower - April 14, 1998 - 1:37 PM PDT</B>
Sasquash
Now, I think it interesting that you didn't even ask how we could have high school students in apprenticeships while not having vocational education programs.
It is entirely possible, you know. The school, instead of wasting resources for questionable vocational education programs, becomes a sort of clearinghouse that connects students in their junior or senior years with employers in the community willing to train them during after school hours for some minimum, apprentice wage rate. In small rural communities this ought to be very doable.
In any case, I argue the schools should get out of the vocational education business, although I'd be willing to consider them remaining in a very limited number of apprenticeship programs, where they supply supplimental instruction and the firms supply the training ground for a particular skill. This would require more of an intern arrangement on the part of voc ed teachers rather than the sort of system in place now. It would require that they supervise students away from the school, that the firm take the responsibility for the student's safety, etc. These kinds of programs are more in line with the european model of apprenticeship training, and may have more value than the kind of vocational training currently provided to the vast majority of high school students.
Btw, Sas,
Rate of return studies are, in essence, an evaluation of the costs of vocational education relative to its benefits (primarily to individuals in the form of more viable economic earning power, greater employment opportunities, lifetime earnings, etc.).
39. Sasquatch - April 14, 1998 - 1:38 PM PDT</B>
Sasquatch missed the next missive from "ChristinO" in which the statements "A note on the cost of Community College. From what I've seen the cost is between $30 and $80 a semester-----hardly exorbitant even for most poor families. The advantage of CC is that its classes are scheduled so that people who work can still attend." were made. Sasquatch responds with the observation that taxpayers should be able to expect a decent education from High School without the costs associated with post-secondary education. Sasquatch does not view High School as a staging ground for Community College. Yes, graduates can get some menial job at the local "fast food" restaurant while yet more education is pursued. Students should be asked to raise a family on that mere pittance so the state can save some tax money is basically the idea here. Students should be asked to give up several years of their lives to earn a piece of paper that won't get the student a decent job? Without vocational education in High School, the High School diploma is almost worthless to those students who do not wish to pursue post-secondary education, regardless of the reasons.
40. dandillon - April 14, 1998 - 1:41 PM PDT</B>
On the topic of vocational ed.: MsIT's got it right. Vocational education does nothing to advance (or even enhance) society's quantifiable productivity; such coursework belongs outside of secondary schools. Prisoners and military failures ought to be the ones trained to flip switches in the factories. As it is now, a typical high school kid, if asked, couldn't begin to *guess* if Holland the Netherlands are the same country. It's a sad state of affairs, my friends.
41. Msivorytower - April 14, 1998 - 1:46 PM PDT</B>
Sas
"Without vocational education in High School, the High School diploma is almost worthless to those students who do not wish to pursue post-secondary education, regardless of the reasons."
Well, no, that's what I was saying above, wrt the rate of return studies. There appears to be little evidence to support the idea that *any* vocational training in high school leads to any better earnings and job opportunities than those pursuing a general academic track. The only vocational education students who get a payoff to their training are those who *obtain employment* directly related to their training. So metal shop has no value unless someone was able to get a job working in a firm requiring those skills. Auto shop, unless it actually teaches someone how to become a mechanic doesn't help a student in their future employability.
Only those programs that transfer *specific* skills that can translate into a job after graduation are *worth it* to taxpayers to fund.
Btw, again, I note that students themselves are not taxpayers, their parents are, and the community at large is. For your information, taxpaying parents rarely bear the full cost of their childrens education in public schools, actually they rarely even approach paying for half of what it costs to educate their kids. And, of course, the more children they have, the less they bear of those costs.
42. rickc2000 - April 14, 1998 - 1:53 PM PDT</B>
Sasquatch; "Without vocational education in High School, the High School diploma is almost worthless to those students who do not wish to pursue post-secondary education, regardless of the reasons."
Gee and here I was under the impression the *even with * the current vocational training programs (they are after training as opp osed to education) a high school diplomal is worthless to students who do not wish to pursue post secondary education.
In the current employment market the college BA has all but replaced the high school diploma as the minimum education requirement for most decent jobs.
43. Sasquatch - April 14, 1998 - 1:59 PM PDT</B>
Sasquatch likes the missive Message #38 by "Msivorytower". If a joint partnership with business that need graduates of a vocation education and the High School is a solution, Sasquatch thinks that idea is great. Sasquatch just notes this idea is not what originally presented by "Msivorytower". Sasquatch does not care exactly how students get a vocational education as long as those that want a High School vocational education can attain the goal.
"The only vocational education students who get a payoff to their training are those who *obtain employment* directly related to their training."
Sasquatch noted that the first time "Msivorytower" typed that sentence in. Sasquatch agrees and has not said otherwise.
"For your information, taxpaying parents rarely bear the full cost of their children's education in public schools, actually they rarely even approach paying for half of what it costs to educate their kids."
Yes, Sasquatch is aware of economics involved. Parents, though, do have biggest stake in the High School next to the actual students. Who pays what is really not important.
44. Msivorytower - April 14, 1998 - 2:04 PM PDT</B>
Sasquash
"Yes, Sasquatch is aware of economics involved. Parents, though, do have biggest stake in the High School next to the actual students. Who pays what is really not important."
Well, I have to disagree. Since the society at large is the primary bearer of the costs of educating youth, parents are only one of a large constituency wrt what ends schools should serve.
In other words, it certainly does matter who pays.
WRT keeping vocational education in High schools, an apprenticeship program such as I described would actually move the training out of the schools and place it in local firms. It too, then, gets the schools out of the business of direct vocational training. Did not the Sasquash get this point?
45. Sasquatch - April 14, 1998 - 2:13 PM PDT</B>
Sasquatch guesses the point was not gotten. If the company were involved as an intern employer as it relates to the High School, that would suggest involvement on the part of the High School. How else would the school guarantee actual learning is taking place without some type of monitoring? Secondly, if the student is going to invest the time in being an intern or apprentice, then some type of High School credit should be earned as a result. If PE is a credit, so too should vocational training.
As to economics, Sasquatch disagrees that "society" should dictate to the school systems the content of the classroom. The Federal Government should have guidelines, which in turn provide state guidelines, and then so on until the individual schools. The school or board should determine what is best for the students in attendance of the schools with parental involvement.
46. Sasquatch - April 14, 1998 - 2:16 PM PDT</B>
"rickc2000" has caught Sasquatch being unclear. Sasquatch meant to type that the High School diploma is useless to the student that seeks no post-secondary education unless the vocational education attained is going to be used as the primary career path by the student.
47. ChristinO - April 14, 1998 - 2:23 PM PDT</B>
Sasquatch: Not being human it is difficult for me to see that you have any frame of reference for the skills you're proposing be taught in VocEd. I have little experience with the car repair industry, but as for construction, assembly line and maintenance jobs you're not very well informed. Assembly line and maintenance jobs are open to unskilled entry level applicants and the skills required to hold those jobs are fairly specific to the job-site in which case they are not suited to high-school VocEd training. Construction is an aprentice situation for the most part and also not the sort of thing that can be taught in a high-school. The industries you mention are some of the few left that are primarily "on the job training" situations. I don't know of any car repair Institues off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are some. I know that there are courses offered in CC. I'm making a guess that car mechanics is similar to these other apprentice industries. Why spend the time and money to give bad training in jobs for which the training most preferred by employers is on site/hands on?
If you want a better education than the one you left high-school with then it is up to you to get it. If you wish for the time and freedom to pursue further education then it is up to you not to start having babies before you get it. I'm well aware that there are people who through no fault or choice of their own have extended families whose support they must contribute to, but Taco Bell isn't the only answer if you have a decent High School education. I work for an employment agency and I can guarantee you that this is true.
BTW: You did not answer both my questions. I still want to know what states you were referring to and what kind of work you meant.
48. rickc2000 - April 14, 1998 - 2:28 PM PDT</B>
Sasquatch; "High School diploma is useless to the student that seeks no post-secondary education unless the vocational education attained is going to be used as the primary career path by the student."
Thanks for the clarification. I do not believe that vocational training as practiced in the vast majority of high schools prepares students for much of anything, least of all for a job in the current, or reaasonably forseeable, job market.
49. Sasquatch - April 14, 1998 - 2:44 PM PDT</B>
"ChristinO", Sasquatch has not attended any vocational education, so feel free to make corrections as needed. Sasquatch may be naive, but a program where basic skills with tools, materials, and issues involved in a manual labor position is what is envisioned for vocational education. For example, how to properly use a Skill saw, scaffaling, basic safety skills, etc. This is pretty much what is meant for construction positions mentioned and the same type of basic skills could be shown for other physical labor jobs. As for geography, Sasquatch was thinking of southern and mid-western states of the United States of America. However, Sasquatch could understand the need in other regions of America. This is a reason Sasquatch wants a more local control of the curriculum.
As for "on the job training", Sasquatch is not suggesting a replacement for that idea. Sasquatch is completely lost with why it is "bad" to try and prepare students for a realistic career rather than prep them for an education that may never be pursued.
Lastly, "ChristinO" can make snide comments about the choices humans make, but the comments do not negate the fact the occurrences happen and it is the responsibility of "society" to help those students if possible in the form of a decent, useable diploma.
50. Sasquatch - April 14, 1998 - 2:46 PM PDT</B>
Perhaps "rickc2000" is correct, but a vocational education received in High School is better than no exposure at all to the needed material.
51. ChristinO - April 14, 1998 - 2:48 PM PDT</B>
Sasquatch: Why should the High School be involved in the apprentice program? To the extent that a firm lets a School know that it is looking for apprentices and to the extent that a School may post such notices is about as much as I would have it so. A High School Diploma means (theoretically, at least) that a certain amount of particular academic knowlege has been obtained. If John gets a HSD for having completed the three R's and Jake gets a HSD for taking woodshop then what does a HSD mean anyway? If a student doesn't want to learn what is required but wants a Diploma anyway too bad. Let him earn a certificate from a vocational school and get his GED.
52. Sasquatch - April 14, 1998 - 2:56 PM PDT</B>
"ChristinO", Sasquatch is not suggesting that vocational training be the only thing learned. Sasquatch is not suggesting that vocational training be the majority of what is learned. Sasquatch is suggesting that taking one or two periods a day to devote to possible career related endeavors is not a bad and radical idea. Sasquatch sees the public and private school system as prep for one of two things. More and better education or job skills placement and learning. Vocational education for students that wish to learn it is a piece of the overall puzzle.
53. rickc2000 - April 14, 1998 - 3:05 PM PDT</B>
Yes Sasquatch that has been the theory behind the existing voc programs in high school. But it has not worked. The students who take the classes are not prepared for a job. There is no accountability for the programs. I agree with MsIt and ChristinO that other alternatives could do a better job and leave more time in schjool for actual education.
54. ChristinO - April 14, 1998 - 3:13 PM PDT</B>
Sasquatch: When I say "bad training" I'm talking about the kind of training that is obtained in a classroom far from the jobsite and under the tutelage of a teacher who is not a construction worker. I'm talking about the difference between what one learns in such a situation and the reality of the job-place. I'm talking about the things that must invariably be un-learned and re-trained. There is no better training for these types of jobs than that which is obtained on-site. Training obtained outside of that sphere is more than likely to be "bad" training which is a waste of everyone's time and money.
You imply that I am indifferent to the hardship of others and that simply is not true, but I do not feel that it helps anyone to put students through school and give them a piece of paper that says they have an education when they don't. As for being snide you might want to watch your own elitism. The South has been condescended to enough thank you very much. We're not a bunch of hayseeds who can't count to 20 without taking off our shoes. If you'd like to broaden the scope by saying "rural" you'd sound much less snotty. In the case of rural areas I can assure you that there are no farmer's kids that need to learn animal husbandry or how to pick tobacco in their schools. They learn that at home and down the road at the neighbor's acreage pretty efficiently. If you want to say "industrialized" areas we're back to the issue of on the job training being superior and prefferable to high-schoool training.
As for what society "owes" to those who make bad choices that's a huge kettle of fish. It depends on the choices and it depends on what kind of assistance we're talking about. Does society "owe" anyone employment? or job training? I'd have to say no. Does society have an obligation to give people enough education to get employment and job training for themselves? Absolutely.
55. ChristinO - April 14, 1998 - 3:18 PM PDT</B>
Here's another question for you Sasquatch: Why didn't you suggest Accounting or Bookkeeping or Management or Administration?
56. rickc2000 - April 14, 1998 - 3:51 PM PDT</B>
ChristinO; Excellent points.
57. arkymalarky - April 14, 1998 - 4:16 PM PDT</B>
Public education seems to be figuring out what it's going to have to offer college prep and advanced students. It's those with marginal ability and motivation that may always pose a problem. When I started teaching, those students were not required to attend school past the 8th grade. High school teachers were unaware of the existence of these kids. They just disappeared. Now they are required to attend school until age 18 unless they go through the process of acquiring a GED. It bothers me somewhat to see a kid struggle through courses beyond his or her capability for the pride of receiving a diploma when a kid with less motivation who feels no responsibility toward anyone waltzes through a GED program a year or two ahead. I have often wondered why we offer one blanket diploma for everyone. Their transcript shows what they've taken and if they have had any special classes, but why should a student who goes through an advanced program at a school receive the same diploma as one who barely gets through the basic and remedial courses? By the same token, however, why does a student who struggles--and I mean that word very literally--through thirteen years of school or more be denied some recognition of what he has worked for? The fact is that some students who for reasons beyond my understanding do not qualify for any special programs, get shortchanged. They have a substandard education and a diploma that is essentially meaningless and nothing to prepare them for what they are able to do. These kids often work just as hard or harder than the top students to get by. The once drop-outs, OTOH, take up space until they can qualify for a GED.
58. ChristinO - April 14, 1998 - 4:16 PM PDT</B>
That's what HE said.....(g).
59. ChristinO - April 14, 1998 - 4:20 PM PDT</B>
Uh 58 was to 56, btw
60. ChristinO - April 14, 1998 - 4:23 PM PDT</B>
Arky, I've been wondering that myself today. Part of what I object to about vocational classes in HS is that students get credit for them toward a diploma that other students are taking academic classes for.
61. arkymalarky - April 14, 1998 - 4:23 PM PDT</B>
Whew! I was about to be impressed with your speed reading and inform you that I'm a she.:)
62. arkymalarky - April 14, 1998 - 4:30 PM PDT</B>
ChristinO,
Of course, 61 is to 59. I'll post this and see if it happens again. Now, to msg 61,
Actually, in AR they are electives, and since I teach in a rural school a lot of our top students are also participants in the vo-ed classes and clubs, even though they are on the college track, so to speak. Some of our students have actually won competitions on the state and national level which have resulted in scholarship awards in areas such as forestry. What we call the tech-prep track really involves the three r's on a more basic level and these students often take few or no vo-ed classes. We do not have a vo-ed diploma program, IOW. Some leave early to work(two classes before school is out at the most), but they must have the same minimum number of credits as everyone else. I don't know if other states work that way; the law varies so widely from one state to another, as I'm sure you already know.
63. rickc2000 - April 14, 1998 - 4:43 PM PDT</B>
ChristinO; "That's what HE said.....(g)." LOL, you are baaaaad.
I agree that voc class should not get the same kind of recognition in school records as acedemic classes. While the inherent "grade inflation" won't effect competitiveness between individuals (I suspect that long term these folks are not going to be competing head to head with each other) it can diminish the value of the GPA of all the students in acedemic classes.
64. bubbaette - April 14, 1998 - 4:45 PM PDT</B>
Everyone I know who is in the trades -- mechanic, carpenter, electrician, etc., learned their trade after highschool. You can make
a decent living in some trades, but I don't think highschool does too much that's effective for preparing students. On the other hand, my sister was somewhat unprepared when she majored in engineeringm, never having worked on a motor or used electrical principals. Similarly many of the students at my rural highschool (myself included) were killing time past their sophmore year.
65. ChristinO - April 14, 1998 - 5:05 PM PDT</B>
Arky: I have no problem with electives whatsoever so long as they do not interfere with core subjects. I think the more time kids spend in and around school improving their minds and opportunities the better. I'm also happy to know that there are vocational clubs out there that are not geared toward merely spending the time of "the academically disinclined".
66. bubbaette - April 14, 1998 - 5:11 PM PDT</B>
Also, the people I know that work in the trades are good at and would have benefitted from more instruction in things like applied physics and mathematics, instead of how to operate a particular machine.
67. arkymalarky - April 14, 1998 - 5:18 PM PDT</B>
bubbaette,
We're trying the applied route, but it hasn't worked too well. I believe the reason is that the programs are designed by people who don't have a clue what those kids need. The teachers of the kids, of course, are not in on curriculum development. That's left up to the "experts." Actually, my understanding was that a panel of teachers was consulted on the program, but that's really not my area, so I shouldn't draw conclusions. All I know is that it has not had the desired results overall.
68. Msivorytower - April 14, 1998 - 7:02 PM PDT</B>
Nice discussion evolving here. I'm only sorry that I wasn't able to continue to participate at the time it developed.
However, I have to say that Christin's posts developed what I had started quite well, and I agree with them completely. What has to be faced, after nearly 100 years of vocational education that mouths the same story as Sasquash relayed, is that this has not happened for a large number of kids who ended up being tracked to vocational education, and it certainly is happening even less and less as we have moved away from basic manufacturing to high skill technical jobs.
Even jobs like refrigeration, air conditioning maintainance, auto repair and the like have all become highly computerized, and require that technicians and mechanics have skills well beyond the ability to take apart and put back together an engine of some sort. The days when that gets you entry into most of these jobs is long over because product innovations have forced those who maintain those systems to become more skilled than ever before, and in areas never before used in those fields.
As I said, my preference is to move all vocational education to the community college level, and re-focus high school on a more liberal arts curriculum, with more math and computer classes required as well. I would be willing to consider a few well identified areas of continued involvement in voc ed at the high school level, but the majority of such training should (and has) move to the post-secondary level.
69. Sasquatch - April 14, 1998 - 9:05 PM PDT</B>
Well, Sasquatch has said made the points Sasquatch wanted to make. The fact that some here what to turn High School into College prep schools and shun those without the money, time, ability, or incination to attend post-secondary education does not dimish Sasquatch's point of view.
Thanks for an interesting discussion.
70. Msivorytower - April 14, 1998 - 9:10 PM PDT</B>
Sasquash
No, it doesn't. Your position is one that has long been voiced in this country. In fact, it is the more mainstream view of vocational education. Mine is the more radical and controversial.
71. Rivendell - April 15, 1998 - 8:16 AM PDT</B>
Sasquatch has admitted already that a high school education has little value by itself.
Does Sasquatch, perhaps, have some figures which show how many students stop their educations with high school commencement and how well these same students do in the job market?
I admit that I have no such figures readily available, but I am guessing that somewhere in the neighborhood of 85% (or more) of students find it necessary to get some kind of post-secondary training.
I like MsIt's suggestion because it would go a long way to accomplishing two things:
1) It would make it easier for vocational education to evolve with the job market.
2) It would allow high schools to concentrate more on basic subjects (that many cry very loudly they do not).
I realize that MsIt has made these points - and more - in her posts.
72. bubbaette - April 15, 1998 - 8:17 AM PDT</B>
Ms IT
I remember back in the 1980's when "industrial arts" changed to "technology education". I worked on legislation to provide pilot funding for technology education teacher training, and found it most difficult that the proponents of the bill -- the folks who had proposed it to the Congressman -- couldn't really tell me what technology ed was all about or how it differed from industrial arts. When the legislation came up in committee, in response to questions about what is technology education, Goodling's staff said "oh it's the same as industrial arts, the association just changed their name", and the Ed and Labor Cttee voted to approve. From that point on we called the bill the "microwave oven assistance act of 1985" around the office. Although it passed and got funding, I still am not sure what the hell it was supposed to do.
73. Msivorytower - April 15, 1998 - 8:30 AM PDT</B>
Hmmm, Bubbaette,
I have to admit that one has me laughing out loud. (Something I'm doing in another thread too, for different reasons.)
How about, teaching those boys how to microwave their breakfasts?
or
How to heat a cup of water without getting burns?
(MsIt, in truth, has no idea, but believes it to be more bullshit doublespeak by education special interest groups.)
74. norwoodr - April 15, 1998 - 8:41 AM PDT</B>
Couple of anecdotes, fwtw.
I used to give talks at local high schools regularly. Without exception, the students told me that their courses were way too easy, geared for the slowest student in the class, and seldom taught them anything they didn't already know. I also heard many complaints that teachers were ineffectual, boring, only interested in talking about morals and religion and drugs and self esteem--even in math class, and that the students often knew more about the subject than the teacher.
I know that there are good teachers out there, I try to be one. But I am dismayed by the low standards of my profession. If doctors had such low standards, patients would be dying right and left. The teaching profession today is where the medical profession was when doctors were insulted at the suggestion that they should wash their hands before delivering babies. Also, if doctors had the low standards of the teaching profession, they would have the low pay of the teaching profession. For teachers to expect better pay without higher standards is absurd.
(continued on next rock)
75. norwoodr - April 15, 1998 - 8:44 AM PDT</B>
Second anecdote, more to the point of the current discussion (promise).
A Black professor in the technology department told me that all through high school he was steered toward the "vocational" track, dispite the fact that he was a whiz at math and science.
Moral: vocational education may work in Germany, and might work here if it was done right, but it is not done the way it should be, either in terms of placement or in terms of content.
www.io.com/~norwoodr
76. Msivorytower - April 15, 1998 - 8:55 AM PDT</B>
FYI:
Here is a taxanomy of where vocational education programs fit at the secondary level. I doubt most of these programs are skill specific enough to lead to direct employment, which is precisely what the research I cited yesterday indicates.
Vocational Education at the Secondary Level
77. bubbaette - April 15, 1998 - 11:47 AM PDT</B>
Ms IT -- I'm beginning to believe that everyone would benefit by some "vocational" skills. My mother advised me not to learn to type or I'd end up doing it for a living. I took typing after I got my undergrad degree because any job I could have gotten in my major would require typing. I suspect that the ability to type will be even more necessary in the future as computers become more ubiquitous. Maybe this could be worked into the grade school or junior high level.
It seems to me that of the manual labor jobs I've had after highschool, all provided on-the-job-training sufficient for their purposes. In my after-college jobs, general academics -- expository writing, the sciences, philosophy have been the most helpful, although along the way I could have used typing and bookkeeping skills that I picked up on my own.
In general, I think that the last two years of highschool are a waste, especially for those who are not college prep. I was quite the truant in my senior year -- I missed half of it and finished with a "B" average. Going to highschool was like watching a soap opera -- you could miss three weeks and pretty much pick it up where you left off. Maybe that's changed in the many years since highschool, but I doubt it, especially in rural school systems.
78. arkymalarky - April 15, 1998 - 12:04 PM PDT</B>
bubaette,
Content in sr. high has dramatically improved in the years since I started teaching. Students are always popping back in from college telling teachers how much the college prep classes have helped them.
The problem in rural schools is that there are so few students the top ones are involved in everything, not just one or two extras. So the absences are still a problem, mostly due to school-related activities, but it's harder for the students to keep up.
As the wife of one who does not type, I agree that typing in hs is a must for almost everyone.
MsIT,
As a college professor, have you noticed any improvement in the performance level of incoming freshmen?
79. norwoodr - April 15, 1998 - 12:08 PM PDT</B>
arkymalarky
You asked the question of MSit, but if you don't mind two answers: the freshmen bottomed out about five years ago, with large numbers of them needing developmental classes, and many unable to, for example, add two fractions. This year's class is somewhat better, but still deficient in problem solving and reasoning skills. The students from the city schools are a lot better than the students from the county schools.
www.io.com/~norwoodr
80. Msivorytower - April 15, 1998 - 12:08 PM PDT</B>
Arky
I confess to being unfamiliar with undergrads (separate beasties), but I believe Blaise handles the "little darlin's". Nonono, my specialty is making life miserable for graduate students.
Sorry, I cannot comment.
81. norwoodr - April 15, 1998 - 12:09 PM PDT</B>
And now many of them are able to, for example, split an infinitive. (Sorry.)
82. bubbaette - April 15, 1998 - 12:14 PM PDT</B>
Norwood
I used to work for a fellow who would go into a rage at a split infinitive -- I saw it as just another example of his anal retentiveness.
83. arkymalarky - April 15, 1998 - 12:18 PM PDT</B>
Blaise did mention in the books thread that they were unprepared for philosophy and the skills required to think philosophically, but there hasn't been an emphasis in that area in hs, though I think there should. That should help in the areas you referred to, norwood.
84. arkymalarky - April 15, 1998 - 12:20 PM PDT</B>
bubbaette,(82)
Great minds think alike. I started to post something on the fact that it's now accepted as standard for the most part, but I was afraid an anal-retentive might chide me for it, if there any in the Fray.:)
85. bubbaette - April 15, 1998 - 12:26 PM PDT</B>
Arky
I know we're sisters, perhaps separated at birth? (: :)
86. Rivendell - April 15, 1998 - 12:29 PM PDT</B>
norwoodr -
My experience (wrt quality of freshmen) has been similar to yours. Although I may be a bit more cynical as to whether there has been much improvement this year.
In any case, the problem solving and reasoning skills are certainly still deficient.
87. norwoodr - April 15, 1998 - 12:39 PM PDT</B>
While there is no harm in saying, "to boldly go", the infinitive I split was one better left unsplit, hense my self repremand. Time to go home, eat my supper, and watch Babylon 5 and The X-Files. Hoping you are the same.
www.io.com/~norwoodr
88. dsaintg - April 15, 1998 - 2:31 PM PDT</B>
I don't know what is wrong with higher education in most places, but I can see some problems here in my state.
First, as state schools -- this is not true in all states -- we must accept anyone who places in the top 3/4 of their high school graduating class. That means almost anyone with a body temp. It also means that, besides our National Merit Scholars and other tremendously bright youngsters, many students arrive at the university needing remediation in core areas, writing, reading, math, science.
That drives the cost up for everyone.
The high schools here do a pretty good job of teaching, but have a powerful problem to overcome because many students are given social promotions from middle schools out of the fear that failure may affect their self esteem. If they miss the basics before getting to high school, for most it is too late.
BTW, on the question of tracking, I recognize that, in the past, many students from underrepresented minorities were tracked into voc-ed, but I still do not think the practice of trying to help a student find the best career choice, be it astronomy or auto mechanics, is bad. The choice should ultimately be the student's, but a good school will have mechanisms set up to help everyone.
One bad thing about voc-ed in high schools is that lazy, but otherwise bright, students track themselves into woodshop, automechanics and welding because it is easier. Later, when they get motivated (and I know this from personal experience) it is doubly difficult to succeed at the university level.
Lastly, speaking of our legislature, I don't think they have a clue about higher ed. The lege here is dominated by shortsighted right wingers who see education as a line item that can be trimmed without upsetting the normal workings of government
89. bubbaette - April 15, 1998 - 5:19 PM PDT</B>
Dstang
In my state, public schools vary tremendously. School funding depends mostly on property taxes, and wealthy counties and cities can afford much more than rural schools and now, inner cities. Then kids from rural schools who thought they were doing well are graded on a curve with kids from wealthier suburbs.
State government is responsible for higher ed, but there's a multi-track system. Community college takes anyone breathing. Schools like UVa and Wm & Mary are quite selective, and some