by Jeanne Allen
in response to “Whence the Apprenticeship”, National Journal
May 30, 2013
The question of the week is another one of those issues that has a history. Some 25 years ago, skills and workplace task forces and commissions were prevalent among government and industry. The US Chamber of Commerce had a workforce development office; the National Alliance for Business existed and pushed for business-like relevancy in education. The BRT was similarly inclined and then there was the SCANS commission. Everyone seemed to be saying the same thing then as they are saying now – that we have to make school relevant and ensure that the students of today are the strong employees of tomorrow. That may be a nice objective, but the way by which we get there is wrong-headed. We need to look at history. We have been down this road before.
The push for changes to curriculum and training and school content resulted in a hodge-podge of programs and mandates for schools that neither translated into higher order thinking among students nor better prepared workers. That’s because doing so didn’t teach them to read or write well or be able to function at levels in school or work that higher ed or employers required. Surveys of both categories resulted in scathing reviews of American education. Give us well-rounded, competent students who know how to work hard, who understand consequences and can be flexible on the job and we’ll train them for our needs, they said.
The backlash, if you will, came from the modern day state standards movement. States from Massachusetts to California to Virginia created rigorous standards, schools got disciplined about expectations and consequences and the business complaints about the American student dissipated.
Why the resurgence? Maybe it’s because we no longer have consequences for not meeting standards in states. Maybe it’s because we are listening to administrators and federal officials who aren’t really talking to local business people. Maybe it’s because we are confusing preparation for work with the purpose of education.
Whatever it is, the traditional public school system hardly educates US students as it is in the fundamental core of this nation and the world, and how to think, read, converse and understand it all so they may be productive conversationalists, workers and community members. There is of course a place for apprenticeships and vocational education but those should be choices parents make, not choices government makes for children. We don’t do enough as it is to provide options but where we do, you see many tailored programs that address school and work issues. The answer now as it was 25 years ago is to create opportunities for personalized learning, for variety of approach and concentration. That way, those who are demanding that schools offer vocational and work related skills to students can have their way, those who believe school has a deeper more lasting purpose can have theirs and families can choose what fits their child best and at what level.
We currently have a very modest version of this– it’s called the charter school movement. From the Henry Ford Academy in Dearborn, MI to LA’s High Tech High, there are an array of options that have been created to combine academic rigor with work-related skills. (Check out the other choices that already exist.)
Let’s find ways to offer more options that address local needs, rather than invite a top-down response to an issue that has more to do with our lack of rigor generally in schools than a lack of workforce related skills being taught.