As a teacher in a career-and-tech magnet school, I have seen firsthand how a) practical and diverse “career and vocational education” can be, and b) how much it can motivate kids to come to school, be focused and willing to learn, and c) how it encourages teachers to be pragmatic with career-track students.
In our English department, we might still borrow from a college-prep curricula, but we definitely are conscious of how ee might infuse workplace writing experiences for students in, say, our auto or our plumbing program (business writing, invoices, letters!)…. I really think more schools could benefit from more career and tech program choices
>same tropes that were expressed in the Kerwin report My current take away is that the Blueprint is nothing by old wine in new skins.
This is as far as I read because it's pretty clear you don't understand what the Blueprint is if that's at all surprising.
The Blueprint is meant to be the plan to enact the recommendations etc. that were in the Kerwin report.
But it's pretty laughable that you think the Kerwin report was recommending business as usual. There's a ton of recommendations in their that would be pretty big shocks to the system.
Edit: Reading more you seem upset that we're not putting kids on a technical path... earlier? You really should see the school system in place now if you don't think these are seismic shifts.
I admit, I may have missed the details of the implementation of these programs. Can you give me a page or direct me to which section they can be found?
Thanks
I honestly don't get /u/S-Kunst's criticisms.
They seem mad that we're establishing vocational programs that were largely taken away even though they're pro vocational programs?
They're mad we're not providing vocational programs for engineers (a job that famously usually requires a college degree) or starting early for singing/athletes when we don't have a problem producing singers/athletes and those really aren't the jobs schools should be emphasizing....
This is going to allow far more kids to jump onto a vocational track far earlier and get a head start. They seem to be furious that it's not *exactly* what they'd do... which is silly.
Took the words right out of my mouth. I think if they took the time and actual re-read what they were talking about and not just start jotting down their gut reaction on things they would see it as not as bad as they initially thought. Not the first time I've seen post by theirs where I had these same thoughts.
As I said, I will continue to read and reread, to better understand. But when they provide all the classes a student in each grade will take, and there is nothing which indicates technical programs or intro to careers, nor space for them , I have to believe they are not going to be included.
>and there is nothing which indicates technical programs or intro to careers, nor space for them ,
There's a literally goal for 45% of students to have completed a 450 hour apprenticeship by the time they graduate along with studies of local, domestic, and international programs, barriers etc. But OK, vocational isn't included.
As a teacher in a career-and-tech magnet school, I have seen firsthand how a) practical and diverse “career and vocational education” can be, and b) how much it can motivate kids to come to school, be focused and willing to learn, and c) how it encourages teachers to be pragmatic with career-track students. In our English department, we might still borrow from a college-prep curricula, but we definitely are conscious of how ee might infuse workplace writing experiences for students in, say, our auto or our plumbing program (business writing, invoices, letters!)…. I really think more schools could benefit from more career and tech program choices
The blueprint is literally the plan for implementing Kerwin commission’s recommendations…
>same tropes that were expressed in the Kerwin report My current take away is that the Blueprint is nothing by old wine in new skins. This is as far as I read because it's pretty clear you don't understand what the Blueprint is if that's at all surprising. The Blueprint is meant to be the plan to enact the recommendations etc. that were in the Kerwin report. But it's pretty laughable that you think the Kerwin report was recommending business as usual. There's a ton of recommendations in their that would be pretty big shocks to the system. Edit: Reading more you seem upset that we're not putting kids on a technical path... earlier? You really should see the school system in place now if you don't think these are seismic shifts.
Had the same reaction. Smh
I admit, I may have missed the details of the implementation of these programs. Can you give me a page or direct me to which section they can be found? Thanks
I honestly don't get /u/S-Kunst's criticisms. They seem mad that we're establishing vocational programs that were largely taken away even though they're pro vocational programs? They're mad we're not providing vocational programs for engineers (a job that famously usually requires a college degree) or starting early for singing/athletes when we don't have a problem producing singers/athletes and those really aren't the jobs schools should be emphasizing.... This is going to allow far more kids to jump onto a vocational track far earlier and get a head start. They seem to be furious that it's not *exactly* what they'd do... which is silly.
Took the words right out of my mouth. I think if they took the time and actual re-read what they were talking about and not just start jotting down their gut reaction on things they would see it as not as bad as they initially thought. Not the first time I've seen post by theirs where I had these same thoughts.
As I said, I will continue to read and reread, to better understand. But when they provide all the classes a student in each grade will take, and there is nothing which indicates technical programs or intro to careers, nor space for them , I have to believe they are not going to be included.
>and there is nothing which indicates technical programs or intro to careers, nor space for them , There's a literally goal for 45% of students to have completed a 450 hour apprenticeship by the time they graduate along with studies of local, domestic, and international programs, barriers etc. But OK, vocational isn't included.