Weekend Update - Extremely Late Edition

It has been very interesting hearing what the people on the street have had to say about all the things going on in town.    Both the questions and comments have been pretty telling.

Some of the most colorful ones have involved the "office" problem in town.  While there will be more to say on this in the future, there is a enough beautiful colors outside today that we don't need to distract from the same with the comments.  

Another popular question question, at least over the last few days, "How come we haven't heard anything about the voc-tech school addition until the article in the paper?"  

A very good question.  

To be honest, it hasn't been a secret.  But if you weren't tuned in to the particular chatter, you would not hear about it.  You wouldn't have heard about it watching the selectmen's meeting.  You wouldn't have heard about it watching the Fairhaven school committee meetings (our elected committee has no oversight or formal input with the running or operation of GNBRVTHS).  

But again, it hasn't been a secret.  Just got to know who to talk with and where to get the info. 

Now I want to add that GNBRVTHS is a very good school.  Over the years I have gotten to know, and right now do know, numerous teachers and administrators at the regional school.  With very few exceptions, these have been and are highly qualified, dedicated and competent men and women. 

It is important to note this and also state that whatever qualms or issues you will read presently or in the future are not directed toward those people or the school itself. 

The other question going around on this particular point is "what can we do about it?"  Well, I did ask someone exactly what they meant by that.  The response was neither clear nor printable within the terms of posting.

Other than seek further information, follow the process and make such comments as one wishes to, there is not much to be done by those not directly in the pipeline.  Might have been nice to see or hear a presentation come to Fairhaven about the whole thing.  Did some checking.  Seems there hasn't been any formal notice or presentation to our Selectmen.  If my sources are wrong on that one, let me know.

In fairness, there doesn't have to be any.  This is one of those regional districts.  Essentially a legal entity unto itself.  One we actually voted to be a part of, and one that is free to proceed how it sees best.    Communities have a weighted representation.

In fact unless there is a need to borrow, or unless it is unable to operate within the net school spending figure the state sets, the only real local decision is the appointments made to the school committee for the district.

Enough with that aspect today.

Although the more space issue does dovetail nicely with the remainder of the blog.

As to the vocational school, and more specifically the vocational school concept, Sunday morning's S-T has a piece by Jack Spillane entitled Giving more kids the opportunity at a vocational high school education.

Within the piece is the following:

This is America. 

The American public education system is supposed to educate everyone who wants to be educated in a viable skill and to then let the most competitive people obtain the jobs.

The above was written by Mr Spillane in response to the following information.  He had asked [New Bedford School Dept.] Acting Superintendent Mike Shea (the former headmaster at Voc-Tech) whether it might be possible to run two vocational highs schools in New Bedford and a third, smaller accelerated academic high school, and [Mr. Spillane] was surprised at his answer.

"You don't want to overflood the shops (at Voc-Tech), because then nobody gets a job," Shea said. 

"Right now, they take 40 electrical kids in every freshman class. You double that to 80 and people aren't' going to get jobs because it can't handle it."

At the end of the opinion piece the following questions are asked:

But as public education continues to evolve in the 21st century, isn't it time to re-think the comprehensive American high schools, particularly in urban settings? And make the vocational high school experience an opportunity that is available to far more kids? 

After all, isn't opportunity supposed to be what the American public education system is all about?

Yes this is America.  Yes the public education system is supposed to educate everyone who wants to be educated (presumably we are talking about a requirement only up to a high school diploma as mandatory).  Where I might veer off from the premise is "in a viable skill" as being a mandatory component, at least to the extent that there are no limits as to the same.


Now I enjoy reading Jack Spillane's columns.  Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't.  The issues he addresses are relevant, the comments thought provoking, and he doesn't pull many punches.  This is what one expects, and should get from an opinion column.

This one of those pieces however where I don't agree with him.  Mr. Shea is very much correct in what he said and the reasoning behind it.

It may sound elitist, it may sound unfair, but when you scratch beneath the surface, it boils down to reality.

Forget for the moment about whether the local job market could handle the additional influx of graduating students seeking employment in a particular trade on a year in and year out basis.  Think about whether the local communities could afford to operate the additional school(s) which would be needed to double the slots or triple the slots.

It shouldn't be about money, I get that; but it does always come down to money.  There are very few school districts in our area that see their yearly requests for operating budgets honored.  The vast majority of districts are fighting to get enough money to maintain the status quo.  

The FY 2013 minimum local contribution from New Bedford to the GNBRVTHS is just a hair under $3,900,000.00; Dartmouth's is a hair under $3,100,000.00; and, Fairhaven's is just a hair over $2,000,000.00.

I will ignore the inequity as to what each community pays for its own students. I have addressed that in earlier blogs.

I won't speak for Dartmouth or New Bedford, but from Fairhaven's perspective, in my individual opinion, if you double capacity at the vocational school, and assumed you would only have to increase the contribution by 50%, that extra million would wreck havoc on the operation for the entire town.

Shifting students into a vocational program will not result in a dollar for dollar shift.  You will still have to provide the classrooms, and course programs at the academic schools at least at the same levels.  Otherwise you would be doing no more than taking away opportunities from one group to give to another.

The costs may not double, but the cost will increase, significantly. 

Money.  The question does in fact boil down to money.  Always seems to.  If money were no object, we really wouldn't be talking about the issue in the first place.  But money is always an object, and an objective.

Unfortunately, this is why one cannot ignore the economic impact of the extra influx of skilled trades persons.  You can't.  I get what Mr. Spillane is saying though about the opportunity argument.  

Yet just how many electricians, contractors, dental assistants, I.T. people and graduates for other trades and occupations can this area sustain.  Does it serve any real purpose to have a 100 students graduate with skills, knowing that the job market will in fact only support 60 of them?

Yes it seems harsh that society pigeon holes 14 year old children.  Just as it seems harsh to see programs scaled back or cut at existing schools so you can afford to keep police and firefighters, do roads, provide other services.  

But if you apply that level of equal opportunity to all aspects of high school, including the non-vocational ones, no student can be denied any opportunity to pursue any course of study he or she wishes to pursue.  

It may very well be that we need to take a hard look at just how our high schools educate their students. It may very well be that expanded vocational schools have to be seriously looked at, and smaller accelerated academic highs schools need to be explored.  But I can see how you will very quickly run into the reverse problem with students who want to be in the smaller accelerated academic high school.

I do get the points raised in the article.  I absolutely agree with the statement/proposition that 

"[A]s public education continues to evolve in the 21st century, isn't it time to re-think the comprehensive American high schools, particularly in urban settings?"

In the end, that may have been the crux of the entire piece.

It certainly should be something anyone concerned about education should be looking at.