School Reform: Thoughts?

Richard Perez3 said:As long as he can bake a communion wafer...

But yeah, I actually know someone who went through this exact thing. Was working mid-level waitressing, one year at HT, then enrolling in college. And that was over twenty years ago,

You’re falling straight into the classic trap of flawed statistical reasoning.

The mere fact that the scenario you're describing exists makes it just one single example, much like how one random old lady who smoked and drank her way to living two hundred and fifty years doesn't make that anecdote a basis for anything. You certainly wouldn't want to calibrate the entire American educational system based on an outlier like that, would you?

Sometimes a rose is just a rose. Actually, more often than not...

Richard Perez3 said:As long as he can bake a communion wafer...

But yeah, I actually know someone who went through this exact thing. Was working mid-level waitressing, one year at HT, then enrolling in college. And that was over twenty years ago,

My old man went through something similar

He did vocational training, then a technical degree, then finally finished with an education major

Under this current system, my dad would basically just be stuck in that three-year vocational program forever.

Nicholas King said:You’re falling straight into the classic trap of flawed statistical reasoning.

The mere fact that the scenario you're describing exists makes it just one single example, much like how one random old lady who smoked and drank her way to living two hundred and fifty years doesn't make that anecdote a basis for anything. You certainly wouldn't want to calibrate the entire American educational system based on an outlier like that, would you?

Sometimes a rose is just a rose. Actually, more often than not...

A rose is a rose, and Google is Google. If smart only looks at one single example, Google has access to countless others. When you type "adult education" into the search bar, what you see is merely one of many results sitting at the top.

nimblelynx7 said:Passion is one thing; reality is another. I used to think I’d major in English or German because it sounded interesting and easier to graduate, but I ended up going to MIT (and then Law School).

Geography and languages won't help him at all there. It’ll be just as much of a headache to make up the credit difference—if they even bother to let him, just to squeeze more money out of him. When my buddy (a bus driver) tried to qualify to drive a subway train, they forced him to take over thirty extra courses, ranging from technical skills and foreign languages to religion (because obviously, it's all about the bottom line).

Does it really take three years of schooling to learn how to stock shelves at a grocery store, change a price tag on orders from a manager, or count items during inventory? They're describing the limits of a "basic" salesperson. A salesperson who knows nothing about cars can't sell cars; one who knows nothing about computers can't work in tech retail; one who knows nothing about electrical supplies can't work in a hardware store... whereas someone who isn't even trained as a salesperson could handle those jobs without breaking a sweat.

Does he need it? Like a fish needs a bicycle. Maybe if he's well-read, he can write better project proposals using actual style? Or maybe not. Who knows.

Actually, it is necessary. If you understood the curriculum, you wouldn't be trivializing the entire profession. While the volume of material and practical training might not seem massive, there is a logical foundation to it. Otherwise, the career path wouldn't even exist.
One needs to master the fundamentals, which is why a three-year high school diploma is required, rather than a full university degree, just to become a "shelf stocker."
If the training is weak or the hands-on experience is lacking, the blame lies with the schools and the employers—essentially, the American educational system.

Not at all. He would have either opted immediately for a four-year vocational track to become a mechanical technician before heading to college, or he would have simply paid out of his own pocket for that fourth year after finishing a three-year program.

If you try to force these kids through a standard academic curriculum during their teenage years, all you end up with are students who cheat their way through or just drop out entirely. Why not just let them pursue what they actually want to do—learn a trade—while providing a pathway to further education later on, provided they can manage the costs?

What they’ve implemented now is essentially a carbon copy of the Swiss vocational school model, though it lacks any real adaptation to our local needs, which isn't ideal. Still, isn't that better than forcing subjects upon kids who clearly have neither the desire nor the capacity to master them properly?

Betty Chase74 said:Actually, it is necessary. If you understood the curriculum, you wouldn't be trivializing the entire profession. While the volume of material and practical training might not seem massive, there is a logical foundation to it. Otherwise, the career path wouldn't even exist.
One needs to master the fundamentals, which is why a three-year high school diploma is required, rather than a full university degree, just to become a "shelf stocker."
If the training is weak or the hands-on experience is lacking, the blame lies with the schools and the employers—essentially, the American educational system.

Explain to me, since you're so clueless, exactly why.
What does a salesperson actually know—what did they learn—that an average shelf stocker hired on a student internship doesn't?
Besides, I know exactly what's taught. I know several retail workers, and it's not hard to Google the curriculum, the hours, and all that.
The major and the career only exist because there are teachers who can't be let go (look at the whining about history teachers and how vocational instructors are being denied their supposed "indispensability"), plus a curriculum exists just to print textbooks that need to be sold, and existing school buildings need to be protected from demolition. If we actually looked at student interest, those schools would have been torn down long ago and turned into playgrounds.

Retailers aren't the only case; there are plenty of other majors and trade schools like it, take textile schools for instance. People go through training just so their competition becomes the Chinese for a handful of rice. They have a better shot at a raise working as a sub-contractor on a construction site than staying in their actual field. Most of them are girls signing up, and we all know their capabilities on a construction site.

Next up are the servers. Nowadays, anyone who hasn't found anything better is a server.

I don't even need to explain myself to you; since you're so well-informed, you already know exactly what the curriculum covers, right?
Besides, you wouldn't compare stocking Nestlé shelves to the full scope of a typical retail associate's responsibilities.
And that goes for being a server, too—something anyone can technically do, isn't it? Of course, how accurately and skillfully they perform the task is a different story entirely. My point is that certain fundamental skills are indeed acquired.
Fine, all of that is irrelevant and could be handled by a chimpanzee using its left hand, according to nimblelynx7 😬

If an employer is motivated and maintains high standards, a worker will eventually learn everything necessary for the specific role. However, why should every single employee have to start from scratch if schools exist to prepare them? That entire onboarding process could be significantly streamlined, saving time that shouldn't be wasted on the basics.
But then again, that’s just our wonderful system for you. Once again.

So, basically, a cashier is just a general shelf-stocker, whereas a Nestlé employee is a specialized shelf-stocker trained specifically in coffee?

I get that you need to know the inventory and follow hygiene protocols, but I’m still not buying the idea that you need three years of training for it. You don't need a degree to sell cars or computers.

Hershey carries chips and tea, along with a few other minor items. 😉 Oops, maybe it’s not quite as straightforward as that charger suggests. 🤔
True, plus there's some retail management, sales psychology, and so on.
All jokes aside, if you believe that specific training for that role is unnecessary, does that imply the whole field is pointless to the rest of us? Are you setting the gold standard for what counts as "worthwhile" education?
That is precisely why our retail, tourism, manufacturing, and general economy struggle. It's because everyone thinks they can jump into any role without preparation. As a result, everything turns out sloppy and chaotic.
In reality, every gear in the machine needs to be in its proper place, and every worker needs to perform their specific duties correctly so that, ultimately, the entire system operates productively, efficiently, and with high quality.
But no, it's much easier to stick your nose into someone else's business and act like a know-it-all from the sidelines—undermining and discrediting others. If people actually focused on mastering their own roles, we might end up with a smarter society. Just a thought.

Nicholas King said:You’re falling straight into the classic trap of flawed statistical reasoning.

The mere fact that the scenario you're describing exists makes it just one single example, much like how one random old lady who smoked and drank her way to living two hundred and fifty years doesn't make that anecdote a basis for anything. You certainly wouldn't want to calibrate the entire American educational system based on an outlier like that, would you?

Sometimes a rose is just a rose. Actually, more often than not...

Nah, you're walking straight into that trap. You're basically making up stats that weren't even there to begin with.

Sometimes an example is just an example. Nothing more, nothing less. 😁

iPhone using Twitter

wanderingbadger44 said:It’s nothing new to see such condescending and ugly commentary directed at teachers, but it still hits a nerve whenever I come across something like this.

It’s as if anyone who graduates with a degree in linguistics, fine arts, or the social sciences is just a failure who couldn't hack it in anything else. It's hard to wrap my head around the idea that someone might actually prefer the nuances of music over coding, or find languages more captivating than chemistry.

But setting that aside, there's another angle I want to touch upon.

Since we are discussing student welfare, has anyone considered how a kid might end up enrolled in a three-year culinary program simply because they were pressured into it, even if they have zero passion for it? Then, once they hit adulthood and finally gain some clarity, they try to pivot into a fourth year to become a hospitality technician because they previously took geography and languages. And maybe they pass their SATs and head off to college...

In the end, that three-year culinary stint remains their highest level of achievement.
Well, since religious studies are staying on the curriculum, I suppose they could always study theology. 🕺

Quite a few of my former students working as servers or retail clerks followed that exact path.

I’d venture to guess they aren't particularly thrilled about working in their field, especially right after high school.
Among those kids, there are some genuinely bright individuals; it's just that they didn't bother much with middle school, so they missed out on getting into the better districts. But once they wake up and realize what they're capable of, they usually turn into something impressive. 😁

Plus, with all the private colleges popping up everywhere these days, there's an option for everyone. It isn't like the old days when getting into a university was an uphill battle.

And so, this whole debate has somehow spiraled into the ridiculous argument that the curriculum for butchers, bakers, chefs, and all those other trades shouldn't be designed to produce high-quality professionals—that’s clearly the goal, right?—but should instead cater primarily to the students enrolling in the program who don't actually want to be butchers, bakers, or chefs in the first place, just so they have an easy way out if they decide to change their minds.

Fantastic. I can't wait for your next flight to New York City, where they'll probably announce a detour to Washington, D.C. first, just in case one of the passengers suddenly changes their mind about their destination. Or maybe when you go out to grab your favorite candy bar and someone decides to dump two liters of Clorox on you because, hey, you might change your mind on the walk home and decide you really need to scrub the bathroom.

BTW, I don't claim to have a deep, granular understanding of the state of affairs across the rest of the world, but I know for a fact that dual vocational training isn't some groundbreaking local invention—it’s just standard practice adopted from other developed nations. But of course, we arrive at that classic bit of local wisdom: "Hey, did you hear the Vienna Philharmonic is coming? Who cares what those snobs think, Los Angeles FC will absolutely crush them by five goals!!!" And then there's our legendary, unparalleled intellect, which apparently makes us far smarter than anyone else in the entire civilized world...

🤣
I really believe we should make it possible for everyone to go back to school all the way until retirement 🧐
.
It’s easy enough to deal with the shortage of bakeries—you can just buy a bread maker or find a great recipe online. But the real crisis we're facing is the lack of skilled tradespeople. It honestly breaks my heart when I see kids who show genuine talent for becoming an auto mechanic or an electrician—maybe because they grew up watching a family member work—only to have that spark extinguished by this relentless pressure to be an academic overachiever. We push them toward a path they have zero interest or aptitude for, and it feels so counterproductive.
They start feeling that pressure in elementary school, and by the time they hit high school, they're already burnt out.

I’ve never really sat down and dissected this, but I assume a three-year vocational program in the US is designed so kids walk away with more than just technical skills—they should actually come out with some general knowledge and a sense of how the world works. If they’re just learning a specific trade, why bother with three whole years? You can pick up job-specific qualifications in a few months if you're focused. As far as general subjects go, most of them barely need anything from high school.
They don't even need much English instruction since they mastered reading and writing back in elementary school.
Math is pretty much a wash too, because once you've nailed addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division in the second grade, you've got the basics covered.
Sure, a server might need a little foreign language for the customers, but a line cook probably won't use it at all.

Honestly, it feels like they only really need the lower grades of elementary school; everything from fifth grade onward is basically overkill.😁

🙏 🙏 🙏

If we were talking about retraining—you know, people who already have degrees but decided they’d rather be machinists than chefs—then I think this would be a great idea.
It should focus strictly on technical skills and leave it at that.
But if these are high schoolers just picking their path, we really ought to maintain some level of a broad foundation in their education.

A machinist who isn't actually interested in being a machinist shouldn't expect to find much of value in a public vocational school.

By that same logic, I fail to see why taxpayers should be footing the bill for subsidizing whatever niche identity politics these little Kansas City kids decide they want to pursue through their education.

We are talking about fifteen-year-olds who have—by their own signature—expressed a specific desire to enter the machining trade; therefore, the only debate worth having is regarding the actual curriculum required to help them achieve that goal.

If the community decides to move toward a ten-year mandatory basic education model, they’ll have my vote—but that certainly doesn't mean there's any sense in pushing for these bastardized versions of vocational training.

Sign me up for both the vocational tracks and the summer programs. All this talk above about retraining is a different beast entirely—you don't even need English or biology for that kind of stuff.

But honestly, even kids going into those three-year trade schools should at least get some basic civics and economics tossed into the mix.

Take the USA, for example. They have a twelve-year school system where everyone stays in the standard track, and only then do you actually learn a trade like baking from a real pro who knows their stuff. You do a one-year intensive program, and boom, you're done.

Betty Chase74 said:Actually, it is necessary. If you understood the curriculum, you wouldn't be trivializing the entire profession. While the volume of material and practical training might not seem massive, there is a logical foundation to it. Otherwise, the career path wouldn't even exist.
One needs to master the fundamentals, which is why a three-year high school diploma is required, rather than a full university degree, just to become a "shelf stocker."
If the training is weak or the hands-on experience is lacking, the blame lies with the schools and the employers—essentially, the American educational system.

Most of the time, a retail clerk is just stocking shelves or stuck behind a register. If you work at a Home Depot, they expect you to be an expert on every single building material—as if being a salesperson means you automatically become a contractor. It's ridiculous. Then you look at car dealerships; half those people selling vehicles don't even have a shred of actual sales experience. Total nonsense.
The direction isn't being set because of the students. It’s about maintaining the system. If it were actually about the kids, the school would have been shuttered and demolished long ago, just to turn the lot into a playground.

Betty Chase74 said:Hershey carries chips and tea, along with a few other minor items. 😉 Oops, maybe it’s not quite as straightforward as that charger suggests. 🤔
True, plus there's some retail management, sales psychology, and so on.
All jokes aside, if you believe that specific training for that role is unnecessary, does that imply the whole field is pointless to the rest of us? Are you setting the gold standard for what counts as "worthwhile" education?
That is precisely why our retail, tourism, manufacturing, and general economy struggle. It's because everyone thinks they can jump into any role without preparation. As a result, everything turns out sloppy and chaotic.
In reality, every gear in the machine needs to be in its proper place, and every worker needs to perform their specific duties correctly so that, ultimately, the entire system operates productively, efficiently, and with high quality.
But no, it's much easier to stick your nose into someone else's business and act like a know-it-all from the sidelines—undermining and discrediting others. If people actually focused on mastering their own roles, we might end up with a smarter society. Just a thought.

So now you’re the one deciding which jobs are actually "necessary"? Give me a break. Of course everyone should do their job with some level of quality, but that doesn't mean they all need a formal degree to get it done right.

hiddendriver34 said:I’ve never really sat down and dissected this, but I assume a three-year vocational program in the US is designed so kids walk away with more than just technical skills—they should actually come out with some general knowledge and a sense of how the world works. If they’re just learning a specific trade, why bother with three whole years? You can pick up job-specific qualifications in a few months if you're focused. As far as general subjects go, most of them barely need anything from high school.
They don't even need much English instruction since they mastered reading and writing back in elementary school.
Math is pretty much a wash too, because once you've nailed addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division in the second grade, you've got the basics covered.
Sure, a server might need a little foreign language for the customers, but a line cook probably won't use it at all.

Honestly, it feels like they only really need the lower grades of elementary school; everything from fifth grade onward is basically overkill.😁

Everyone has to finish elementary school; that's why it's called "elementary." I can tolerate English, math, and a foreign language as general subjects, but everything else should be scrapped and replaced entirely by vocational training. For some jobs, you don't even need schooling; for others, school isn't enough, and you won't have enough lifetimes to learn it all. Eight years of elementary school should be more than enough to teach life skills. High school—which shouldn't be mandatory—should focus strictly on learning a trade, supplemented by a few general subjects tailored to that specific job. For example, you could keep English, but instead of wasting time on literature, you'd learn how to write complaints, memos, purchase orders, and bids. I haven't once read about a valedictorian who couldn't draft a formal appeal regarding their SAT scores, yet they sure know how to write essays praising some classic American literary garbage.

rowdypanther12 said:🙏 🙏 🙏

If we were talking about retraining—you know, people who already have degrees but decided they’d rather be machinists than chefs—then I think this would be a great idea.
It should focus strictly on technical skills and leave it at that.
But if these are high schoolers just picking their path, we really ought to maintain some level of a broad foundation in their education.

Let me remind you: high school isn't mandatory. If eight years of elementary school isn't enough to provide a "broad" education, then we might as well extend it to twenty-four years.

so, here is a little look at the absolute chaos currently unfolding in our school districts

I suppose I find the whole thing somewhat entertaining, in a detached sort of way—just watching these self-proclaimed "visionaries" stumble blindly through their latest round of sweeping reforms. 🍿
I suspect we'll eventually see everyone nostalgic for the old public education system from back in the day, lamenting how much everything has shifted since then. 🤣🤣
They call it "education for life," but if you ask me, it feels more like schooling for corporate drones.

urbantinker8 said:so, here is a little look at the absolute chaos currently unfolding in our school districts

I suppose I find the whole thing somewhat entertaining, in a detached sort of way—just watching these self-proclaimed "visionaries" stumble blindly through their latest round of sweeping reforms. 🍿
I suspect we'll eventually see everyone nostalgic for the old public education system from back in the day, lamenting how much everything has shifted since then. 🤣🤣
They call it "education for life," but if you ask me, it feels more like schooling for corporate drones.

Since I work in STEM, I can tell you straight up—they're lying through their teeth!

I can give you the full breakdown in a private message.