My Vocational Ed Problem

PETERS:Points 1 & 3: I tried to resist the temptation to go off on a tangent on community colleges since that is a whole separate story in itself and, again, an underreported one that I feel very strongly about. But since you asked: community colleges work very well for two groups of people, high achieving kids who use them as a less expensive means to get their general ed. requirements out of the way on their way to a bachelors degree, and older, working adults who use them as a second chance to pursue higher education later in life.

For the 'C' average or below high school graduate, however, they are mostly a cruel illusion. Yes, you're right, they all get accepted to community colleges but the percentage of 18-year-old's that enter them and actually matriculate to either their A.A. (associate of arts degree) or a four-year college transfer is abysmally low -- less than 20 percent in California (much less I imagine if you take out the 'B' average and above kids who go to C.C.'s [community colleges]).

There are many fascinating reasons for this but I won't go into it unless you're interested (I'd also refer you to the best book I've read on the topic, "Ambitious Generation, America's Teenagers, Motivated but Directionless" by Barbara Schnieder and David Stevenson). Suffice it to say that community colleges afford our secondary education system the pretense that they are preparing the majority of kids for some valid form of higher education when they clearly are not. Take away that pretense, look at the real numbers and we see that at least two thirds of our high school students are completely wasting their time on the college prep track in high school.

Point 4:

I agree, public schools are not set up to develop quality vocational programs -- primarily because school administrators and ed school academics are virtually all liberal arts types who tend to view college as the be-all and end-all of a rigorous education and who tend be contemptuous of voc ed., partly for the legitimate historical reasons voiced to you by Mr. Gradillas -- but also because of the narrowness of their experience and at least a touch of elitism.

And doesn't that reinforce my main point anyway? Don't we need to bring people from the community college voc ed. programs, private trade schools and private industry into secondary education? Sounds like something Republicans could get behind that would actually help kids.

MATHEWS:My question is: the community college situation is key, and you have me on the edge of my seat. Why don't those C students get anything out of community college?

My answer: because they have not matured to the point where they see the need of it, but they come back to the community college years later, having become those older, more motivated students that you refer to.

PETERS:I understand your question to be something like, what's the big problem if those C average students mature and just go back to school a few years later and finish up then?

The answer: As I said, a small number do. And that's the group that C.C.'s best serve. Most don't and here's why. Statistically, people who go directly from high school into the work world are much more likely to assume multiple adult responsibilities in their twenties than those who don't; marriage, kids, mortgage etc. Now I'm a fairly hard-working guy. I work a demanding teaching job, and am taking six units a semester towards earning my marriage and family therapy license and I have two young sons at home. Yet even though I have the luxury of a wonderful wife who is a full-time mom, I still feel stretched to my limit. How anyone who is part of a dual-career household or, worse, a single parent, manages to put themselves through school is utterly beyond me. And of course, most can't. That is why those 'C' average kids have got to get those middle class, $20-per-hour vocational credentials by their early twenties before the responsibilities start piling up and they're trapped in sub $10 - $15-per-hour purgatory. Hope that's what your were looking for.

One last point. The reason I sought you out has to do with how much I believe in what has seemed to be the over-arching thesis of your work; that all kids are entitled to a shot at a meaningfully rigorous secondary curriculum. To motivate kids to engage in a rigorous curriculum there must be the notion that their hard work will result in something real. Therefore, no kid should be permitted to say that they have completed high school unless they have earned something real that requires rigorous pursuit, whether it is four-year college admission or legitimate vocational certification. That's all I'm concerned with. Does that make sense? Thanks again for having the conversation.