This is a new report released yesterday from Harvard on a project entitled “Pathways to Prosperity” (link to the actual report embedded within the article). The authors suggest establishing career tracks for students as early as middle school. They argue that the tracks would be 'flexible' enough to allow students to switch down the line. I respect the authors of the report (as well as Dr. Anthony Carnevale who is mentioned in the article). But we know that tracking at such an early age (common in Europe) is connected to social inequalities. When a person says "college is not for everyone," they are usually talking about other people's children, not their own.
Harvard Report Questions Value of 'College for All'
The authors are certainly flirting with a ‘thin line’, one that separates an idealic system of offering opportunities and direction for young students, and on the other side, some form of ‘tracking’. The authors resist the notion that their system puts kids in tracks, but at the same time acknowledges that if the career options the child aspires to do not require as much schooling, that they would have a less rigorous curriculum and require less training after high school. The article provides perspective from both sides of the ‘thin line’.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, the authors are saying they do not track students and that it would be more about providing career opportunities, informed direction, and flexibility for middle school students. I can’t argue with that. If the Harvard project expands, it will be interesting to see if it can stick to those ideals and be executed in a way that steers away from the ‘thin line’ and maintains its good intentions. Implementation is always different than planning/theory.
I believe that initial conscientiousness and planning will help steer the Harvard project in to calm and friendly waters, if it does expand to a city/state level. If it gets adopted (depending on who the ‘parents’ are), it seems to have good potential. However, as I mention above, when a system is taken into someone else’s hands (state government, shaped by teacher unions, community pressures, funding issues) it may be steered toward compromise.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete...And so it appears that what is old has become new again. It is glaringly obvious that the argument espoused by the authors of the Harvard Report is just a shined up, not so cleverly polished, version of a very old notion. Like a rusty aged tricycle that was dusted off, rescued from underneath the junk in the garage and re-gifted for little grandson Tommy. It still squeaks a lot and pales in comparison to the shiny bright red tricycle in the window. The point is, it’s nothing new! The addition of 21st Century buzz words like opportunity and flexibility do not eradicate the traditional issues associated with vocational education. Am I against the general concepts of vocational education and career academies? Not necessarily. However, in the actual report, the authors simultaneously outline and ignore the biggest crater in this “re-envisioned” plan. As the authors point out, “the problem is that as income inequality has widened, this has created a terribly uneven playing field. Children of affluent parents tend to do well…they are eight times more likely to earn college degrees than their low-income counterparts.” While I understand the hypothesis that children should be given the option of viable careers, I’m skeptical toward the notion that refocusing on career education will actually serve to close these income gaps. The authors maintain, “27 percent of people with post-secondary licenses or certificates—credentials short of an associate’s degree—earn more than the average bachelor’s degree recipient.” While that number seems impressive, a larger point is perhaps that 73 percent of these people do not earn more than the average bachelor’s degree recipient. For underprivileged youth, is the proposed plan and the forecasted explosion in middle-skilled jobs really a “pathway to prosperity” or a road to complacency?
ReplyDeleteThis article is very interesting. I agree with Katie Haycock that when tracking occurs, children that are poor and students of color are the ones that tend to suffer.I don't think tracking should occur at all. Who are you to tell children, you cannot do that career because your grades do not reflect that you would be good in that profession? If a student is bad at a subject at a young age, there is always room for improvement in the future. An example would be if a student did bad in math in middle school, they would tell them they could not be an engineer. What if their math grades improved in high school because they received some help from a tutor. Would that student still not be eligible for a career in engineering? Something I would propose is that they have people from different occupations speak to students about their experiences day to day because this would allow students to learn at an early age about an occupation they might be interested in pursuing as they get older. Taking a few required courses the first two years in college sometimes does not help some people that are undecided when it comes to choosing a major. I also feel like the article is missing a valid point where some people might not want to go to college. Instead a student might want to pursue vocational school. They cannnot just force students to attend college and do a major that is already picked out because of that student being tracked throughout their school career. Whatever happened to being able to choose your own career? They always say to be a leader and not a follower. In this case, one would have to follow what they are being told to become in their profession which is wrong.
ReplyDeleteGreat responses...looking forward to seeing the connections to Conant today
ReplyDeleteDefinitely interesting, and I agree with John that there is a strive for the idealic system. I do think that there needs to be changes in the system, starting in elementary, middle, and high school if we are going to continue to grow and prepare our youth for the increasingly specialized fields, and occupations in need of postsecondary education. I do believe there would be positive outcomes to this such as increased specialization and possibly increased excitement towards a career path earlier in life. BUT, I completely agree that this 'tracking' would increase the social inequalities, and possibly create a 'cooling out' period earlier in a child's life. If all they are encouraged to strive for early in their life is a vocational or 2-year degree, moving on to an attainable 4-year degree and increased specialty may be even more difficult. The 'labeling' of children would start at an earlier age when it may be difficult to see the educational attainment that a child may strive for that can change in their high school years. The decision to put this child on a 'vocational' track vs. a 4-year track may be the opinion of a specialist that knows little about the child, especially at the age of 12 when they begin middle school. A lot would have to do with the parent as well...parents that fight for the education of their children will be able to put them on a higher track than those that are less present, so a talented child with drive will fall through the system.
ReplyDeleteBased on my own experience I didn't know what I wanted to be when I was in middle school. I changed my major a couple times in college...and until I applied for my Master's program, I still didn't know what I wanted to specialize in. I can't imagine someone putting me on a certain path when I was younger. I mentor children in grade and middle school right now and because they are minorities and low SES and they would be first generation I believe a program like this would set them on a certain path that would lower the expectations the educational system has for them...but I know that they can achieve much higher educational levels without being set on a path.
"Middle School aged children being prepared for the workplace" speaks to how schools are ran much like factories. It also alludes to the ways in which children are conditioned and socialized not only through their class status but through their schools objectives, goals and mission. The owner(s) of factories operate their company in similar ways (goals, objective, mission). By this the workers access, freedom, and growth through the institution is largely contingent upon the objectives of the company. It seems as though these various institutions are working hand in hand creating a cycle in order to maintain the status quo.
ReplyDeleteThis video reminded me of this topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U