This is the other side of the debate over…
…whether high schools have become too college-track oriented. That new orientation, which the governors launched two decades ago after meeting in Charlottesville, aspires to put all students on a college-track curriculum. 
The rationale: Nearly all students need some kind of post-high school education to survive in today’s marketplace.
That logic is hard to take issue with, as this New York Times article makes clear. What those governors never realized, however, is that ramping up the verbal demands in the early grades would leave a lot of boys behind. Many never catch up.
In theory, schools could adjust to help boys adjust, but I don’t see that happening in the near future. My evidence? The U.S. Department of Education has yet to launch a single study into why so many males are falling behind in school and failing to attain the post-high school education they need.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Of course DOE hasn’t launched any studies. Large bureaucracies, whether private (GM, for example) or public (DOE) move very slowly. But, if the Times piece is accurate, young men and their families are taking matters into their own hands. The story is about teenagers and young adults, but it is likely that the parents of younger boys are getting the message, too.
June 30th, 2009 at 7:55 am
The article talks about the death of manufacturing jobs. The problem is that these jobs have been replaced by McJobs, low paying jobs with no benefits and variable hours. It has been suggested that, if health care passes and everyone is covered independent of their job, that over time, these McJobs will morph into the new blue collar jobs, and college for everyone won’t be the only path to minimal economic viability.