Mike, others -- Here in the US we are creating a tertiary education system out
of the piece of the100-plus federal and state level job training programs.
Planning for this started in the early 1990s as a top-down federal
efficiency/"fix-it' effort but had to wait for our welfare reform act of 1996
to really get going. The name of the legislation that underpins this system is
the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. It went on line in the various states in
July 2000. The purpose of it is to alleviate the high-skill labor shortage
felt by employers (this is the flip side of current low unemployment levels).
It is designed and managed by employer-business majority appointed boards and
administered through public employment service offices called One-Stops. It is
deeply anti-education establishment, anti-union, and anti-government in its
culture. The kinds of trainings that it subsidizes are typically (I've been
following it closely in Illinois and Chicago -- things may be somewhat better
in some other states) short-term quickie technical skills.
If we were to draw an AT triangle to help us understand what is going on in
this system by comparing it with an AT triangle that illustrates the
relationships of our primary (public K-12 through 4-year BA programs) and
secondary (public K-12 through community college) education systems (I realize
I'm raising some flags here -- by labeling these primary and secondary I'm
signalling who gets into these as the defining factor of each system) -- we
would see that the community that is the origin or source or constitutency for
these systems is different. I think we'd probably agree that the constituency
for our primary and secondary education systems is the general population.
But the constituency for these WIA training programs is only business and
employers -- "employer driven" is the mantra of the meetings and plans that
govern planning and implementation.
Funding for these progams is not great -- $3.7 billion this year -- but they
are driving a consolidation of state agencies and privatization and -- more
germane to our discussion -- chasing these contracts is shaping the design of
education programs and distorting public education systems because they see WIA
as the face of the future.
Yes, as Mike asks, "Is it simply the new, higher tech economy, so we are
preparing :"higher order students" for neo-liberal life long threat
of unemployment?"
I'd put it this way: the newer high-tech economy consumes quickly obsoleting
skills because of the speed of competitiveness. Even among skilled workers,
requirements change -- the workers who today faces at least 5 job changes per
working life face not only 5 training challenges but 5 exposures to
unemployment.
North Carolina is one of the leaders in this re-shaping of educational systems
toward this goal.
Helena
Mike Cole wrote:
> One of my overpowering quetions, not unrelated to Nate's about funding,
> was (roughly): Where and when is this possible even WITH funding? I a,
> am teaching via DL a course in North Carolina and interacting with advanced
> grad students/return professionals who are in despair because they are
> so restricted in what they can do. I speak with other colleagues who have
> 9 couse loads in quarter system colleges. Even my prized afterschool time,
> in the era of 6-6 school "attention" and even in institutions like boys
> and girls clubs indicates that the "lock down/stick their noses in the
> work sheet/test preparation" activities is prevelant and gaining ground
> point the same way.
>
> Where are the gaps for new/old inquiry-based curricula that think that
> reading and writing take time and effort, but not drill and kill? Why
> are they there? Is it simply the new, higher tech economy, so we are
> preparing :"higher order students" for neo-liberal life long threat
> of unemployment?
>
> >From all I can tell, the spaces are small, far between.
> I crave evidence that I have it all backwards!
> mike
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 01:01:09 PST