Elementary and Secondary Education:

Let’s start out with something simple:

Our public schools exist for the purpose of educating our children--nothing more.

Public schools should not be used as a tool for addressing social problems. 

Public schools should not be used as a substitute for the family in teaching morals or personal responsibility.

Public schools are not responsible for developing self-esteem.

If they want to, our public schools can do any or all of these things--but not because the federal government tells them they have to.

We, as a nation, have fallen behind other countries in student performance. We do need to improve our schools. We do need to improve the quality of instructional programs in our public schools. We do need to make schools safer. But responding to these needs is the responsibility of local authorities.

This does not mean that the federal government should not be helping to improve our schools.

Every school system in the country is facing a budget crisis.   Every school system in the country has had to curtail programs and activities.  Every school system has had to delay or cancel plans to buy new textbooks or improve its science laboratories or renovate aging facilities.  Many school system cannot even afford to provide adequate classroom supplies.

There are also many areas in which the federal government can help schools without interfering with their instructional programs. For example:

Everywhere in the country, there are examples of schools that have dramatically increased student performance through programs that build student (and community) pride in their schools.  Active parent-teacher associations that work to build school pride can do as much (or more) to increase student performance as additional hours of teacher training.  There is no federal money to promote the efforts of these organizations--but there should be.  

Counseling that focuses on student problems — in and out of the classroom — rather than merely serving as a tool for maintaining discipline, also make significant contributions to student performance.  But improving counseling services remains the “ugly stepchild” of federal education policies and programs. 

Dropout prevention remains one of the most serious problems facing our public education systems.  Congress understands this.  In fact, Congress understands this so well that it has enacted over 300 programs administered by 12 different federal agencies to confront the problem.  These programs are uncoordinated--both in purpose and administration.  We need to reduce program (and agency) duplication and focus our efforts of solving problems.

Congress Needs to Re-examine How it Distributes Federal Education Money:

The federal government rarely mandates any State action.  It merely makes money available to the States subject to major conditions. 

The vast majority of federal funding for elementary and secondary education flows from the federal Government to State education agencies in the form of “block grants.”  From there it flows to local education agencies. But while the federal Government cannot mandate what local education agencies do, the State can mandate what local education agencies do.

State education agencies are happy to receive federal money--strings and all.  It helps pay for their bureaucracies and gives them more power over local education agencies.  Included in that power is (a) the power to tell local agencies what to do, regardless of whether or not the local education agencies want (or need) to do what the State wants and (b) the power to make local education agencies divert resources from their own priority needs to satisfy State requirements.

The problem is that the local education agencies—the ones who have to satisfy the requirements imposed on the money by Congress—have no voice in the State decision of whether or not to accept the money (and the strings attached to it).

If State’s have any greater knowledge than Washington has about what local school systems need, that difference is marginal.  School systems have vastly different needs, and when it comes to federal (and even State) education policy one size does not fit all.

Vocational-Technical and Adult Education:

Much of our trade policy is based on the assumption that the loss of low-paying, low-skilled jobs to other countries will be made up for by higher paying jobs for which Americans have the necessary higher levels of skill and education.  However, putting all our emphasis on preparing students for the new jobs of the future ignores the fact that—even in the context of an expanding high tech economy—well over half of the job openings will be not be in high tech  industries.  Rather, they will be jobs created by the retirement of the baby boomers and the need to replace workers in traditional jobs. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that the near-term [5-10 year] need for replacement workers will be at least three times the need for workers skilled to meet the growing demand for workers with high tech skills.  These are not the high-tech jobs for which on the efforts of our educational system are being focused.  These are the basic jobs in the trades—mechanics, construction workers, machine operators, technicians etc.  Even as the high-tech segment of our economy expands, 40 percent of job openings will still require only a high school education. 

Our emphasis on preparing students for “high tech” jobs also ignores the fact that even in a changing economy there will be increased demand for workers with skills that cannot be classified as “high tech”.  For example, a future “green” economy will need workers able to manufacture and install solar panels and wind turbines, to build and maintain offshore wind turbine towers and to retrofit buildings with energy efficient equipment.  Similarly, even though the material goods that we enjoy — everything from appliances to vehicles -- are increasingly the product of high-tech manufacturing processes, the job of servicing those goods remain relatively low-tech. 

Vocational Education In Secondary Schools:

Not all of the students who complete secondary school are destined for further education—whether in community colleges or otherwise.  Some will simply not be inclined toward employment in high-tech careers.  Others will not — regardless of how successful our schools are in developing “basic skills” — have the ability to succeed in a course of study leading to high-tech jobs.  But the low-tech jobs to which these students may aspire are just as important to the economy as the high-tech jobs for which they might be prepared by post-secondary schools.

These students are just as much in need of job skills as those who might pursue post-secondary education, and these students are just as entitled to the opportunities to receive vocational skills training as students who may pursue post-secondary education.  We have an obligation to these students as well as those who can benefit from enhanced opportunities for higher education.

The biggest single impediment to expanding vocational education in secondary schools is money. The facilities and equipment needed for these programs are expensive.  I believe that the benefits more than justify the cost, but local school systems do not have the needed resources.  In the decade following the enactment of the Vocational Education Act of 1963, vocational education programs proliferated due in large part to the federal money made available for facilities and equipment.

Many of the recent efforts to strengthen community college jobs training programs have been established by the Employment and Training Administration of the Department of Labor rather than by the Department of Education.  For example, the Community-Based Job Training Grant program intended to support workforce training for high-growth/high-demand industries through the national system of community and technical colleges. Funds are awarded to individual community and technical colleges, community college districts, state community college systems, and One-Stop Career Centers to support or engage in a combination of capacity building and training activities to expand the ability of community colleges to train individuals for careers in high-growth/high-demand industries in the local and/or regional economies.

In many states, collaborative efforts involving community colleges and workforce officials are supported with state funds derived from means ranging from payroll taxes for workforce development to bond issues.  However, in spite of their general success in developing collaborative efforts, some college and workforce officials stated that the Workforce Investment Act [WIA] performance system measures and funding criteria create impediments to their workforce efforts.  Specifically, these officials say that some of the measures for the Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth programs, such as earnings and job retention, created disincentives to serve more disadvantaged clients because of the difficulty in obtaining employment for these population groups.  Some community college and workforce officials also note that Education and Labor have not aligned their performance measures across their respective workforce programs.

Adult / Continuing Education:

Millions of Americans have already left school without the skills needed to succeed in the two-year programs where technical education is being concentrated.  These people are denied the benefit of systemic design changes that treat post-secondary education as continuation of secondary education.  They do, however, have needs for a system for integrating adult/continuing education with post-secondary technical education.

More than 75% of those who will be participating in the workforce in ten years are already beyond the reach of our secondary schools.  Current federal policy emphasis community colleges and other post-secondary institutions as the predominant provider of technical education for the jobs of tomorrow.  But most of these jobs--particularly those in health care occupations--require a degree--and anything less is virtually meaningless.  However, more than two-thirds of those entering technical education programs in community colleges and post-secondary technical institutes complete one year or less of course work in a five year period, and fewer that one-half actually earn a credential or certificate of any kind.

Adult education continues to be thought of primarily in terms of literacy and language education.  These needs are addressed principally through the Adult Education and Family Literacy Program administered by the Office of Vocational and Adult Education in the Department of Education.  These programs provide grants to states to fund local programs of adult education and literacy services, including workplace literacy services, English literacy and civics education programs. Participation in these programs is limited to adults and out-of-school youths age 16 and older.  At the state and local level, these programs are administered by all different education agencies as well as through libraries and community organizations funded with federal grants.

The benefit of adult education programs is not found in improved literacy skills alone.  Adult education can be a valuable “recruiting” tool for bringing more mature students back into tracks leading to technical careers--and for bringing back  students  who left community colleges without a degree.  According to the Counsel for Advancement of Adult Literacy, adult education programs reach only about three million adults out of 30 to 50 million adults with low basic skills.  To the extent that adult education programs have been linked to specific employment, this linkage has historically been to job training through programs sponsored by the Department of Labor rather than educational programs in community colleges and technical institutes.  However, the growing participation of community colleges in networks of job training programs sponsored by the Department of Labor ideally positions them to transition students from DOL initiated job specific programs to more comprehensive programs of study.  The potential benefits of such a transition can be promoted through the expanded allocation of student loans and grants to enable these students to pursue comprehensive programs of study in community colleges. 

One of the “obstacles” that will need to be addressed in developing such a program is found in the fact that Pell Grants and other student loan programs are only available to students who pursue for-credit (degree oriented) course work.  However, not all of the courses that post-secondary schools offer for adults, even if offered for the purpose of preparing a student for employment, are offered for-credit or are part of a “degree track.”   Consider, for example, that between 1997 and 2000 the number of Microsoft Certified Systems Engineers [MCSE] certificates awarded increased eight-fold—from 35,000 to 280,000.  But because many of the courses required for this designation are specific to one certification--e.g. not general to the requirements of a related associate’s degree program—they are not always offered on a for-credit basis.

 Labor Department Training Programs:  

According to the General Accountability Office, in 1999 there were 40 federal programs that spent an estimated $11.7 billion on providing job training or job placement assistance as a key program goal. Most of these programs are located in three federal departments -- the Department of Labor, the Department of Education, and the Department of Health and Human Services. These programs primarily serve one or more of the following groups: welfare recipients, other poor adults and youth, and workers who have lost their jobs due to foreign trade.

The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) was intended to unify the fragmented employment and training system through a national workforce preparation and employment system (America's Workforce Network) to meet the needs of businesses, job seekers and those who want to further their careers, through a nationwide system of workforce development organizations that help employers find qualified workers and help people manage their careers. The One-Stop approach provides a single point where customers can access a wide array of job training, education and employment services. It also provides a single point of contact for employers to provide information about current and future skills needed by their workers, and to list job openings.

This is a worthy objective.  However, it falls far short of what is really needed because it does not even begin to consolidate all programs.  Individuals continue to have needs for services that are only provide through programs that lie outside the “One Stop” system.  Each time an individual tries to access these different programs it is like he is entering the system for the first time.

To comment on this issue in the Issues Forum, click here

_____________________________
Was this helpful? [Optional]

No Very

Do you have feedback? (Optional)

Enter Word Verification in box below