The Observation Deck

I would argue for the reverse.
Go to the european model. Find out at 16 which kids want need or are capable of higher education. Send them to 'university' and the rest to trade schools.
The idea of a public school system running in effect a "junior college" is intriguing but not in any sense practically sustainable.
In either case it will take a very long time to shift gears and Lakewood cannot do it on its own. It would take the blessing and support of many layers of government and bureaucracy.

Is this one of the recommendations from the state audit announced in early November?

http://lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewt ... highlight=

Charlie Page wrote:Is this one of the recommendations from the state audit announced in early November?

http://lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewt ... highlight=

No. The state staffing analysis has yet to be formally issued. Stay tuned.

Matthew John Markling wrote:

Charlie Page wrote:Is this one of the recommendations from the state audit announced in early November?

http://lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewt ... highlight=

No. The state staffing analysis has yet to be formally issued. Stay tuned.

That's a relief!

For a copy of the resolution, please click here.

For a copy of the accompanying exhibit, please click here.

Dee Martinez wrote:I would argue for the reverse.
Go to the european model. Find out at 16 which kids want need or are capable of higher education. Send them to 'university' and the rest to trade schools.

I agree. What troubles me is this idea that all kids have to go to college. The reality is this - not all jobs require a college education. The key is to follow Tom Rath's premise of finding their strengths and then pointing them in that direction. Some will be trades apprenticeships, vocational schools, training programs, college, etc.

I think we do children a great injustice when we harp on college. Many children know themselves well enough to know that they are not college bound - they don't want to be, and the path they SHOULD pursue is not one requiring college.

Imagine how it must feel to have everyone around you pushing college on you when you know you won't be successful there.

IMHO

The reason kids who shouldn't bother with college go is that employers have made the BA a new threshold that all employees must cross.

Look at the number of want ads for relatively menial positions that require a BA. It's ridiculous. They use the college degree as a quick and easy weeding out tool.

Do you REALLY need a BA to be an insurance adjuster, a car rental agent, a customer service rep, an event planner, or a marketing rep? All pf these positions routinely advertise and require a bachelor's degree.

It's just another hurdle placed in front of young people for no real good reason.

In my parents' generation, a high school graduate qualified for almost any job, and college was more a social activity for the upper class than preparation for employment.

But things have changed and we have made the college degree today the equivalent of a high school diploma then. And everyone seems to accept that m.ore education is good for a country's economy.

Someone without a college degree can do quite well. As Edison did well without a high school diploma, and as Bill Gates has done without a bachelor's. But many of the jobs that a person without much education can do have fled the country, or been automated. A few trades, such as plumbing, have not fled, and won't, but they are relatively few. I think the schools should certainly offer the opportunity to learn those trades, perhaps in cooperation with the trade associations, and I believe they do that.

However, because kids mature and develop at different rates, I would be reluctant to relegate them at a young age to the non college bound track.

Further, what criteria would we use to make such a decision. Based on test scores and academic achievement, a case could be made that Black students should be relegated, but I don't know anyone who would want to do that!

Further, as well as the public schools do in their primary mission of educating children, I don't think they should be trusted to decide which kids get an opportunity at college and which don't.

So I think the schools already provide for the student who wants to work directly after graduation, but most of the publicity and public interest goes to what they do with the students who want to go to college, and the public gets the impression that college preparation is all the schools do. I do think all students should be given the tools to be a good citizen, such as managing their finances and health, and where to get information, and I wonder it that is happening.

My concern is when politicians and people with a platform say things like all kids should go to college. THat's unrealistic and I believe puts a burden on those children who want to (and should) pursue a different path. I think all kids should be given the education in primary school so they can get into a college IF THEY CHOOSE.

I think the mistake is made when you assume that all young people need to be guided. There are many who know themselves well and know what path they should be taking. As I said earlier, it's about playing to their strengths. That IMHO is part of the job of the school system - to help them identify their path. To assume that they will all go to college is to screw a lot of those kids.

in addition, I know many people in various industries who tell me that they aren't getting young people to join their industry and therefore it suffers. ONe of the construction companies in town actually offers a week in the summer for high school seniors to shadow their staff so they can learn about the construction trades. When too few people enter the trades, those jobs won't get done.

And these are well paying jobs!

Grace O'Malley wrote:The reason kids who shouldn't bother with college go is that employers have made the BA a new threshold that all employees must cross.

During the depression a gas station owner advertised a job at his station under the heading: College degree required.

Most jobs that require a college degree don't really require a college degree. One affect of encouraging the idea that college is for everyone was to turn colleges into high schools and high schools into junior high schools.

As to Lakewood Schools: They can and should cut at least $10 million from its current operating budget.

Bill Call wrote:

Grace O'Malley wrote:The reason kids who shouldn't bother with college go is that employers have made the BA a new threshold that all employees must cross.

During the depression a gas station owner advertised a job at his station under the heading: College degree required.

Most jobs that require a college degree don't really require a college degree. One affect of encouraging the idea that college is for everyone was to turn colleges into high schools and high schools into junior high schools.

As to Lakewood Schools: They can and should cut at least $10 million from its current operating budget.

I should be able buy a BMW for $20,000 and my boss can give me a $100,000 raise.
What are your specific proposals?
Before you answer, remember that YOU and I Mr Call, only pay about 62 cents for every dollar spent by Lakewood schools. The rest comes from Cols and Wash DC.
The federal money are "restricted grants in aid" which means they MUST be spent the way the feds direct them to be.
The state money is "unrestricted" but if the schools take away $10,000,000 in spending the state will likely take away a similar amount in funding.

But I am still all ears. Itemize it for us.

Bill Call wrote:As to Lakewood Schools: They can and should cut at least $10 million from its current operating budget.

10 million? is this a typo? I'd like to see the details as well. I would assume at least 80% of expenses are salaries. That doesn't leave much else to cut. Where's the 10 mill coming from, if not from salaries.

[quote="Dee Martinez"][
I should be able buy a BMW for $20,000 and my boss can give me a $100,000 raise.
What are your specific proposals?
Before you answer, remember that YOU and I Mr Call, only pay about 62 cents for every dollar spent by Lakewood schools. The rest comes from Cols and Wash DC.
The federal money are "restricted grants in aid" which means they MUST be spent the way the feds direct them to be.
The state money is "unrestricted" but if the schools take away $10,000,000 in spending the state will likely take away a similar amount in funding.

But I am still all ears. Itemize it for us.[/quote]

I'm really curious as to where you think Columbus and Washington get their money?

Will Brown wrote:
I'm really curious as to where you think Columbus and Washington get their money?

I understand you think your being clever with that remark but the fact of the matter is that federal monies generally fund programs for disadvantaged and disabled students. If you run the numbers and do the math youll probably find that maybe 87 cents of your federal tax bill finds its way back to Lakewood schools.
State funding? A better argument. But that gets back to the whole school funding system. Should we all pay into one giant pot in Columbus and all take our relative share? Or does Columbus give us a guarantee and we add on as we see fit?

Again please give me ideas not flip answers.