Trained Workers or Educated Citizens?
I am going to post some really good education stories from around the country that I've been saving.
But here's what the U.S Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona, tweeted on December 16th:
Every student should have access to an education that aligns with industry demands and evolves to meet the demands of tomorrow’s global workforce.
It was apropos nothing and that is the full and complete tweet.
And he tweeted this today:
Our work to transform our schools is crucial to creating a strong economic foundation for our country.
It’s time to break down the silos between K-12 systems and college, career, and industry preparation programs. This is how we transform education in this country.
As you might imagine, many of us on Twitter had replies because that particular statement seems to makes it sound like U.S. education is for training workers and not creating educated citizens. BOTH are important.
Peter Greene:
That's not education. Public education is not meant to serve the needs of employers, but the needs of students. Yes, students probably need a job. But a job training system is meager and narrow. Our children should aspire to more than being useful meat widgets.
Diane Ravitch
Schools do not exist to meet the demands of industry. They exist to help every student reach his or her full potential and build a thriving democracy, where everyone counts and participates.
Christina O
That’s NOT “education”. That’s churning out workers for corporations. We need critical thinkers. How sad that the Secretary of education is tweeting out Amazon hiring propaganda. Worse yet is this isn’t satire. Step down sir. You are NOT an educator.
Dismantalope
I can’t even wrap my head around this. Frightening. Someone check his calendar for the names Koch and Bezos.
Carpe DM
He doesn't even start it with education. He starts it with "access to" an education. Whatever that means.
Benjamin H
I get why that sounded good in your head, but why would we be aligning elementary school curriculum for today’s industry?
“Industry” even five years from now will look vastly different.
I am very disappointed in the Secretary.
Comments
Aim high
I also think it’s time we reassessed what we require to graduate high school and why. Remember, it’s not just what do we think is legitimate education, but it’s how our children spend their time and what resources districts expend to offer them. Why do we still require two years of a language? Most do not go on to study or speak the language, and many rural district struggle to provide them; it’s a check the box requirement. Same for art and math. Maybe what makes most sense is the ability to explore more subjects, aka electives? Why not follow what our students want?
Half In
Aim High, I am in support of *offering* advanced math but not requiring it. Most will not need them in their careers. Agree that rigor is important, but it’s draconian to require mastery in a little-used part of curriculum in order to graduate.
Hold On