The Census Bureau tells us that only 45% of American children are entering post-secondary educational programs that have become a Real Necessity for a decently well-paid job in America. No such thing exists as "competition in education" for the best. Some children in some schools do better than others and that's the way it is. The reasons are myriad and complex, but typically come down to the quality-of-teaching, which is in turn dependent upon state educational budgets. Which is where we should be looking for the improvement necessary. A high-school diploma is no longer sufficient for this new Information Age of ours, and the Industrial Age has long since hightailed it to the Far East! But since primary and secondary schooling is city/state funded there is not much the Federal government does or can do about "quality". That's a great shame! Because standards are necessary in any educational system that is nation-wide- and they should not be dependent upon state-oversight and funding (which is most often lacking). What is needed, I suggest, is a Common Core of Teaching for all schools - funded by Federal money - which might look like this (from here): A National Standard, as shown above, could be applied and schools benefiting from Federal subsidies could be "overseen" on a regular basis for "quality of education" according to a common standard. (And not just the results of SATs). The aptitude for learning is different amongst children. Those who are not post-graduate quality should be given another alternative for learning a skill that will allow them a better chance of finding a good job. Skills-training is therefore an integral part of any TOTAL educational program at a state level. NB: *Most importantly is the key impingement to higher-learning - called Expensive Post-secondary Degree programs in state-funded schools. We can spend 52% of the Federal Discretionary Budget on the DoD but only a pittance is returned to the states to help provide a tertiary-level education at very-low-cost for ALL OUR CHILDREN! *See that fact corroborated here: Current U.S. Discretionary Spending - FY 2020 Budget *Without a nearly-free Tertiary Education for all, the US is not training its people for a highly competitive economic future.
Will there be more better paying jobs if more children enter post-secondary educational programs? Let's not fall prey to the fallacy of composition now (i.e. just because it may be true for the individual doesn't mean it will be true for the whole).
A great idea in theory, but much easier said than done. I'm very concerned there will be a disconnect between the skills they are given and the skills actually wanted. Many people have gone through these training programs only to report that employers in that industry view their time in these programs as almost worthless.
True enough. Which is why their access must be very easy and free for all who wish to take the course. This is France, so the most prevalent course is ... "Cuisine". (Not just "cooking" but "cuisine". Because in France it is considered "an art". Wow! ;^) I also think that kids-finishing-high-school need to be catered very carefully about where next to go. There is a definite connexion between GPA (Grade Point Average) and which subjects for which a student may be talented. Then again, if it's for free (or almost free) that simply means that people will come back to affordable training/education when needed, if needed. ...
My "general theory" as regards that question is simple: We are evidently exiting the Industrial Age and entering the Information Age. Different talents are needed and those talents are far more sophisticated than previously. There is no problem whatsoever (here in France) in "going with the flow". Lot's of kids are entering hi-tech Internet-based jobs - but they need more technical qualifications than before. And here in France, those qualifications do not cost an "arm-and-a-leg" to obtain ...
I would point out High School is arguably free so wouldn't besides the original posters excellent idea be to add to the High School length of time in school to five or maybe six years. Students spend eight years plus one for kindergarten already and this would allow for two years of technical education to earn a career skills set for entry into various careers or serious preparation for college. And yes this means tracking students, getting businesses to participate since these people are going to be their future workers, government to fund this and rethinking High School to make it a route to employment. And this would be fair to the poor since the government would be funding their employment preparation no student debt and yes they might need money to buy tools but they could do a version of a Pell Grant to be released to purchase tools for a trade when the school says they need them. We could move these student into apprenticeships maybe at a higher level of pay if needed after the education is over. Years could be Junior 1 and 2 and Senior 1 and 2 leading to a Diploma with professional credentials or students ready for a rigorous college education but I would propose even these students get some skills to be employed as a secondary focus. Wouldn't this solve a lot of issues?
Everyone should stop. Supply and demand says that employers will still have to hire employees from the available pool.
OK, so show me a professional study of the matter and the numbers that support your allegation. Unsubstantiated one-liner responses are simply not good enough - except for the dunces that write them ...
I think that states should handle education rather than the federal government. If you have a problem with education in your state, complain to your state representatives and local city council. I think we can get policy done more effectively on a state level. Plus we can encourage more competition between states. Other developed nations are so small that they are basically states and individually manage their own systems.
You’re kidding, right? Check out information from the NEA, Education Next, talk to experienced teachers, or go have children.
NO! YOU CHECK IT OUT AND THEN ARGUE A CREDIBLE RESPONSE! (Enough of your one-liner BS in the midst of what should be a "Debate Forum".)
Yes, avoiding information that doesn't merely support your baseless preconceived notions is very intellectually honest. "Ignore" will inform you much better than actually listening to a highly experienced educator. https://www.heritage.org/education/...s-begins-home-how-children-can-succeed-school https://lindastade.com/important-factor-childs-education/ https://www.learningliftoff.com/why-a-parents-role-is-essential-to-student-success/ https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1156936 http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/PB11_ParentInvolvement08.pdf https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11162-018-9517-z
Every good Socialist might ask: How much is enough? "The average Plumber salary in the United States is $55,886 as of March 28, 2019..." https://www1.salary.com/Plumber-Salary.html "The average Welder I salary in the United States is $39,327 as of March 28, 2019" "The average Welder III salary in the United States is $56,220 as of March 28, 2019..." https://www1.salary.com/Welder-III-Salaries.html "The average Automotive Mechanic I salary in the United States is $38,827 as of March 28, 2019..." "The average Automotive Mechanic III salary in the United States is $57,009 as of March 28, 2019..." https://www1.salary.com/Automotive-Mechanic-III-Salaries.html
And so. I'll bet you think those salaries are just dandy. How LUCKY those workmen are! From HuffPost, the Income Reality that you don't see: This year’s results show the hourly wage rate needed for a “modest” two-bedroom rental is more than double the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour in all but four states.
Affordable housing is another issue but we need those trades, many could be taught in High School to an entry level with no debt to the students leading into apprenticeships for more advanced skills and papers and in the long run with no debt the income even if you think they are bad are not dragged down by paying off student loans. As for affordable living the government has a lot of clout but maybe people need to think practically if a 1950's size home was suitable for a family of four even if a bit cramped by modern standards it should be sufficient. And many people pay more than 30% of their income on housing I use about 60% of mine including utilities, I do get Medicaid and SNAP but lets assume the family has access to company medical insurance and food and lives modestly I suspect they could do well with a two income family. I figure my benefits would produce an income in the range we are considering easily enough. But for high cost locations maybe they need to fund rent controlled government housing that is good, basic nice apartments with no frills an be sure they can be afforded or have low cost mass transit to move people from areas further away to and from work at an affordable monthly pass the issue isn't the workers problem or the employers its the government not planning well. Most areas with serious needs need real affordability if the household earns $60k then provide housing for $20k even if you must run it and make it largely non-profit the costs of running the property, repairs and such with a little buffer for emergencies say 10% over these basic costs might be needed. And keep them basic units that look okay but not all fancy. People would rent them. For the disabled like me you might need little studio apartments good enough to live in but not fancy. If your not trying to turn a profit housing could be affordable.
You are making an excellent remark with this point mentioned above. As I never tire of repeating: Here in Europe where I live entry to and the cost of a Tertiary-level Education (vocational, Associates, Bachelors, Doctorate degrees) is FREE, GRATIS & NEARLY FOR NOTHING. I asked my French dentist recently how much he paid per year for his dental-degree at a state university. He responded, "not more than about 1000 euros a year for four years!" Then he apprenticed (at a university dental service) for two years before opening his own office. Most students in university today here in Europe go to these centers for their dental work. It's just a question of getting our hands around the problem of way-to-high Medical Care that plagues the US since about 50/60 years. And implementing a solution that does not leave people behind in the dust! Because we must do something! Your lifespan in the US is 4-years less than mine in France! (See lifespan infographic here.)
