|
|
Clarification about School-to-Work A Commentary by Diana M. Fessler May 2, 1997 School to Work (STW) is not a program; it is a system that "will assure that students have opportunities for careers." (Aspects of School-to-Work misunderstood by some, R. Arline Smith - 3/30/97). That, of course, raises the question of whether it is the function of schools to assure career opportunities. Americans have always had opportunity for careers based on talent, initiative, creativity, and supply and demand in a free-market economy. Why then must government now assure opportunities for careers? Proponents cite field trips to the local fire station as career awareness and say that such trips have been standard practice for years, but the idea of little tots visiting the fire station doesn't accurately portray STW. What is at stake here is a fundamental change in the purpose of education, one that strikes at the heart of the basic American freedom to control one's destiny. Under STW, no longer will we inspire youth to pursue their goals and dreams; rather students will follow a curriculum designed by those who want their labor. STW is not about field trips; it's about using schools as job-training centers, a move that is raising much controversy. Proponents say that STW is "locally driven." Not true. The state has agreed to 23 federal requirements in exchange for approximately $45 million. The money is dispersed to regional and local entities who have met specific requirements. Such an arrangement cannot be construed as "locally driven." Proponents says participation is not mandatory, but for all practical purposes, it is guaranteed. STW, by definition, is an integrated school-based and work-based learning system in which academic and vocational education is intertwined. How does one opt out of an K-12 integrated system that culminates in a career passport or portfolio that government is encouraging business to consider when making hiring decisions? Without the career passport or portfolio, the realistic chance of being hired for a good job will be poor to slim. Therefore, regardless of the oft-professed disclaimer that participation is voluntary, the consequence of not participating will be a strong incentive for all to volunteer. Mrs. Smith says that Youth Centers weren't discussed in the state grant. That doesn't mean that discussion hasn't taken place in some other context, or under some other name. Ohio law makes provision for alternative schools for at-risk students. In addition, the proposed Standards for Schools, which will be voted on by the SBE in May, also make provision for schools for "at-risk learners." So although we do not, as of yet, have schools called Youth Centers, we have knowingly, or unknowingly, laid the foundation for them, regardless of what they may be called. Proponents report that Ohio is just "exploring the need for a Certificate of Initial Mastery" thereby implying that we are only toying with the idea. The rest of the story is that a manager has been assigned, partnerships are being developed, specifications are being written, and a $150,000 allocation has been made. (1996 Continuation of Funds for STW, p.7) It is readily apparent that Ohio has clearly moved beyond mere exploration. Business will not be taxed to pay for K-12 STW students; but to re-train current adult employees. Authors of America's Choice: High Skills or Low Wages!, a document that didn't just sit on a shelf, recommend "that the Federal government require all employers to spend a minimum amount of funds annually to send their workers through certified education and training program. . . Initially, employers would be required to spend approximately one percent of payroll on education and training . . . " (p. 82-83) Mrs. Smith pointed out that the State Board of Education (SBE) voted unanimously on a STW resolution. If all voted yes, then why is this member publicly speaking out against it? The vote on the vaguely worded resolution came before I completed a four-month, in-depth study of national standards, assessments, and certificates, their relationship to STW, and before I fully understood the massive changes that are taking place. Notation in the official minutes record my yes, "but with reservations" vote. My reservations have since been confirmed. In just over 200 years, this country went from a colony of England to the Greatest Nation on Earth. We've had more Nobel prize recipients than any industrialized nation, we've sent people into outer space, pioneered open-heart surgery, and our science and technology are copied worldwide. Those who accomplished these feats were the product of an education system that emphasized a curriculum that led to academic excellence, not mere job-training for the good of the economy. ------ ------- To read the article that prompted this rebuttal see: Aspects of School-to-Work misunderstood by some, R. Arline Smith - 3/30/97 |
|