A few years ago I read a book--the title escapes me right now--cowritten by
Brint and Karabell. I believe it was published in the mid-80s. They trace
the rise of the community college since the 1920s. One thesis in the book
is that two-year colleges proffer to students an intermediate step to the
baccalaureate degree, but according to the data they collected, two year
colleges actually "cool out" these students. They mean by this that many
of the students who aspire to entering a four year college get "derailed"
(or "rerailed") into the world of work. As I remember, they provide quite
a bit of analysis of two-year college discourses about education and the
world of work, as well as analyses of two year college's curriculum.
I taught in a two year college in the early 90s. Because I had also taught
in the local high schools, I was assigned to coordinate a concurrent
enrollment project that would put high school students on a fast-track to
get a two-year degree in fields such as computer assisted drawing,
electrical design, carpentry, office communication systems, and such. One
of the "sales pitches" to the high school students went something like:
"Would you like to be making $25,000 by the time you are twenty?" The state
(Utah) put up a good chunk of money (I never got to see the figures) to
finance the program. My role was to be the liason with the high schools
concerning general education requirements. I know this is anecdotal, but I
sat through many meetings with deans and academic vp's who let me know that
they thought the general ed requirements were an impediment to the program.
On the other hand, I have also worked with and in business writing classes
that aim to furnish students with the skills they need to move into and up
the ladder of the corporate world--but also with critical awareness of the
discourses of hierarchy and power relations.
Scott Oates
At 11:03 AM 12/2/98 -0800, you wrote:
>I would appreciate some specific citations on "School to Work." I have
>researched plenty of people and companies interested in providing options
>to public schooling, and I have yet to find anyone who touts "efficiency,
>productivity and profit" as their primary motivation. I also have yet to
>find anyone who suggests that the primary goal of education should be to
>shut down the arts and humanities and replace it with technology and
>vocational training. Where are you finding these people? Provide some
>specifics.
>
>My view on the transformation occurring in education today is that there is
>widespread popular dissatisfaction with school as usual, and so there's
>much interest in looking at alternatives. This movement is occurring on
>many fronts, from individual to family to corporate to national. I don't
>see any one hand behind it, but I see a confluence of many forces. My
>question is: Why is this transformation drawing such heated rejection from
>education faculty, and why is their rejection mischaracterizing it so
>completely?
>
>Louise
>
>
>
>>>"efficiency, productivity, and profit for meeeee.
>>>No one will get education for freeeeeee".
>>>
>>Anyone interested in education needs to get prepared for the huge impact
>>the School to Work movement is going to have on this field.
>>
>>The federal government is putting billions into the hands of governors (the
>>sidestep state departments of education that way), to get them, along with
>>their corporate cronies, to change the way education takes place in this
>>country. They want to make sure that it is made clear that public schools
>>work for employers not parents or the students themselves. Anything that
>>is not useful vocationally is not to be taught.
>Louise Yarnall
>Freelance writer & Research assistant
>UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Science
> * Work: 310/794-9137
> * Pager: 818/474-5536
> * Home Office: 818/342-6760
> * Home Fax: 818/342-0751
> * E-Mail: lyarnall who-is-at ucla.edu
>
>