High Schools Producing the Most Dropouts Identified

Talking to your points:

It costs far less to add another English teacher & another classroom than to equip an auto or electrical shop. How much are vouchers supposed to be - for $10,000 a year per student?

I am optimistic that solutions to the liability problem can be found. I was not aware of problems when I took wood and metal shop, (both with very little supervision, since there was only one teacher). But vocational training can be expanded greatly, including off campus job experience. (Health careers, car rental, real estate, appraisal, office work, and retail work all have low risk of injury and lawsuit while teaching practical work experience, and I know these are not high paying jobs, but they give the student an idea of what they will find when they graduate). What vouchers do to make this possible is allow the hiring of personnel to run these programs without the "holy teaching certificate" being necessary, hence the programs don't cost as much and the vouchers that support the school with these programs do not need to cost more than any other school voucher.

Vouchers are not going to solve the problem of irresponsible parents who have kids out of wedlock, use drugs, are in prison, abandon kids with grandparents. That's the reality of much school "failure."

Well, this is the standard cop out, and yes I know some of these kids and I would help the school by kicking them out without waiting for them to drop out. Now schools have to support these kids in alternative schools and even pay for their being held off the street. What a silly idea, if kids are planning on failing in schools, have them sign a form and let them go. (But where do you go when you have no skill??? Well now we need some alternative schools so these kids can get into the labor pool and stay off the street. If they become criminals then we have a place for them. So nice to have lots of choices.

I have *never* heard of public schools being defunded, even in cities that *have* voucher programs.

Under some funding proposals, this is exactly what would happen, and if a significant number of ADA kids left a school the school (as you point out) would receive less funds. Now it is this school's unfortunate job to find a way to survive on less money. Lets see, shall we institute a facility renewal program or hire more teachers now that we have less money? I think the school would lay off teachers, and drop programs making them less attractive and causing them to lose more vouchers. I guess some schools would turn around, and somehow raise their standards, but not likely in my opinion. I have no real voucher experience, and I can stipulate that if you have seen that this does not happen, I suggest you look into why a school continues with the same overhead-- teachers are the biggest percentage of overhead--when they lose students. In my district in CA, when kids population declined, teachers (included yours truely) lost their jobs.

Finally, you are most worried about the true problem issues districts have, this is not the majority of the kids. If we can improve the dropout rate in the majority I would say that is a plus. As far as problem kids/parents, there is much that needs to be tried. High motivation teachers, (the cream of the crop) have proven they can motivate many of these kids, but they need programs and small classes to do this. I don't like to throw kids away, but an average increase in the teacher's skills would produce less of these kids along the way, and we could "save" the kids who drop out because they lose interest, not because they are on drugs, gangs, behave criminally, or have parents that make life hell for them.

Re: vocational training. It's not *necessary* to learn how to work in retail through a school. Any school which takes tuition or tax money to teach that is wasting it. Teaching office work requires *up to date* computers and software, especially the nasty brand that makes you purchase one copy for each computer. As far as health care, I have to disagree that it has "low risk of injury & lawsuit" potential. Who is going to let a 16 year old high school student loose in a health care facility and/or around patients?

What I'm talking about re: vocational training are higher-paying jobs like plumbing, carpentry, electrical contracting, HVAC, auto repair, building inspection commercial & residential, operating heavy construction equipment (cranes, bulldozers, etc.) These pay far more than clerical work & are not about to get outsourced anytime soon.

You also mention that programs would be cheaper without certified teachers. Why on earth should that be the case? If I've been a professional electrical contractor for 20 years, why am I going to charge a pittance to teach students the basics of wiring and electricity? I am going to charge *more* than a certified teacher. So having excellent vocational training is not going to reduce costs, but substantially increase them.

Personally, I believe that mandatory attendance should end at age 14, at the end of 8th grade. High school should be *by examination only,* and high schools should be separated into vocational and various levels of academic tracks. Even vocational students should be tested for physical, manual, eye-hand dexterity and ability to read blueprints, manuals, documentation, building codes, etc. Only those students who *want* to go to high school should go.

I don't know what you do with the vast disaffected masses. A lot of learning involves learning on your own, and making use of libraries, apprenticeships, general personal character traits like patience, perseverence, honesty, etc. My view is that schools should teach their curriculum and are not social welfare agencies designed to "save" everyone.

I am with you as far as schools not being the social savior, in fact the teacher's union has made schools the social indoctrination center of the country, and not for jobs or work or the pursuit of work. I also agree that school may be passed by exam, but most schools allow this, or the GRE equivalent.

I still want to plug vocational ed, but in conjunction with earning the credits and passing the required subjects to earn a diploma, (easy enough these days). You are correct in your supposition that teachers should be paid a salary that allows them to earn what they could make on the outside. (them what can, do, them what can't teach). I was an electrical engineer, but went into teaching to see if I would be sucesssful and enjoy the job more. It cost me a great deal, but I found I did like teaching. Of course retiring early was enabled by my engineering career, not my teaching career.

There are many like me, who might teach if the salary were good enough. For a retiree, good enough may mot set a district back so much. What about a fitness center instructor who could come in for a few hours a day and teach aerobic exercise, or the engineer who could come in one period a day and teach electronics. As a general contractor I could see teaching a program (but here you do need the materials and tools) during which I might keep my eyes out for the best new employees in my business.

BTW, the people who take the really high jobs, like crane operator, heavy equipment operator, machinist... are people who go through school, often studying the required subjects very intently. But there are kids everywhere who need exposure to what is out there, and spending time around a hospital, (even though they don't "do" any thing that would be considered work) does help people become motived to work that extra time to get into the field.

I only brought up the teacher thing, because the time to earn a certificate and be paid according to the number of years of service, (PE, math, and english teacher earning the same) is a bunch of crap that has brough the schools to this low level. There are lots of ways that tallented people can be given a chance to reach young people without the salary thing being the main impediment. But you raise good points, and I don't mean to say it would be easy.

BTW, the people who take the really high jobs, like crane operator, heavy equipment operator, machinist... are people who go through school, often studying the required subjects very intently. But there are kids everywhere who need exposure to what is out there, and spending time around a hospital, (even though they don't "do" any thing that would be considered work) does help people become motived to work that extra time to get into the field.

I'm not sure I know what you mean. You can't just have people wandering around hospitals who don't "do" anything. People who are on the premises need to be supervised, and as any nurse working in a big hospital today will tell you, hospitals are *brutal* places in which to work - because everyone is overworked and there is very little time or budget for supervision. Then there are all the liability issues.

Other places that do very interesting work (like Boeing or Lockheed-Martin) are going to be even more picky about who gets into the plant, and from what my engineer husband says, many big engineering firms have greatly reduced the # of internships because of cost.

Good for you, going into teaching after retiring as an engineer. Most of the retired engineers or scientists I read about here in St. Louis are men, mostly with military experience as well. They are probably less frightened of going into a questionable neighborhood or area to teach. My observation in St. Louis is that it is *very* difficult to get a teaching job in the "good" school districts, and very easy to get a teaching job in the poor ones - IF you have the almighty certificate. But if I were a 60 year old retired woman scientist, I would NOT go into most of those schools even on a provisional certificate, and the schools I would want to work for would be very competitive for getting a position.

I want to correct one thing, I was an engineer (at Lockheed) and quit to go into teaching when I was 25. I was laid off after ten years due to a decline in the enrollment in my district. I went back to Lockheed and spent 26 very good years, during which I taught many engineers in subjects such as systems engineering and decision making. (I had a blast teaching my peers, and the pay was the same engineering salary, so I had it all. Plus I went back into some very exciting engineering jobs between classes.)

While teaching, a good friend ran a health career program at the local hospital. (I have no idea how they handled liability, but the kids loved the program and many went on to point their education at a career in the field. (I ran a computer familiarization course and many kids who did not go into college programs went into careers in the computer field--basically simple programming jobs or tech support.)

You are right about Lockheed being picky these days, the intern program gets the cream of the crop, and employees need security clearances to work in many areas.

Now retired, if I wanted more work, I would look into teaching, (I am a physics major, but never got to teach physics). But my plans now call for lots of travel and trailer living. Nice to talk to you about what is wrong with education. (Many things) but I look at vouchers as a way to break the stranglehold of the unions, they unions are the main reason education does not get reformed in place. Talking to a friend who is currently a principal, she would have more voc training in school, but for the issues you raise. I of course hate to let naysayers stop good programs from happening, but to get around these issues, the program leaders need a lot of dedication, and need to donate a lot of time. This can get programs going, but is a drain on personnel, and basically will only work till they burn out. I hope that some of the accountability that is being applied will also help. Other than that, the kids themselves need to change their attitude and look at what they can accomplish rather than how they can get out.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.