The fallacy of “school to work” education programs

For the past several years the buzz phrase has been “school to work” education. The Federal government has been pouring billions of dollars into this seemingly new concept. The majority of Stateside school districts, including the CNMI PSS, have Jumped on the bandwagon with their hands out for a piece of this heavenly manna. It is a reincarnation of vocational guidance programs that go back at least 90 years.

In 1893, in an effort to promote uniformity of curricular courses in the high schools, the National Educational Association (NEA) established a panel called the Committee of Ten to make recommendations to improve the high school curriculum. Charles W. Eliot, president of Harvard University, and one of the nation’s most esteemed educators of his era, was selected chairman of this blue ribbon panel.

After extensive research, the Committee of Ten agreed: “that every subject which is taught at all in a secondary school should be taught in the same way and to the same extent to every pupil so long as he pursues it, no matter what the probable destination of the pupil may be, or at what point his education is to cease.”
The report concluded that secondary schools do not exist for the purpose of preparing boys and girls for colleges, but exist to prepare young people for any road they take in life.
The curriculum should prepare all children for a rich and full life, no matter what their ultimate vocation.

Then in 1918, the National Education Association sponsored a Commission of the Reorganization of Secondary Education. Unlike the Committee of Ten which was comprised of college presidents and secondary school principals, the CRSE was dominated by educators. Its members were mainly from the world of professional education and colleges of education. Their report published in 1918, identified “the main objectives of education,” as follows: “1. Health, 2. Command of fundamental processes, 3. Worthy homemembership, 4. Vocation, 5. Citizenship, 6. Worthy use of leisure, 7. Ethical character.” Do these sound familiar?

The two reports, separated by twentyfive years, both claimed to be based on the principles of a democratic society. The Committee of Ten (1892) believed that all children should have the experience of a common academic education., that all should be educated in the same way regardless of who their parents were or what their intended destination in life. On the other hand, the CRSE (1918) believed that the curriculum should be tailored and differentiated to meet the needs of society and of children. Starting from similar premises, the two ended up in very different places.

Over time a compromise was struck between the conflicting ideals. The Committee of Ten’s ideals were applied to the academic track; the principles of the CRSE dominated the vocational and general track. Let’s examine why the CRSE won and its effects today.

In all this we fail to realize the damage we do to young students when we corral them into vocational courses because they fall behind in regular academic courses. Unwittingly we condemn them to a life limited of opportunities in the work field.

The truth is that if a student cannot read, write and compute by the time he graduates, regardless of socalled vocational education courses he participated in, he will not find a decent job. Even if he does his opportunities for promotion will be extremely limited.

The sad fact is that students are not benefiting from vocational courses. They become more of a diversion from learning how to read, write and compute. They act as a form of misguided baby sitting. At best, for many students they are a hobby.