Is Vocational Training the Magic Bullet for Improving Boys’ Education and Lives?

boys welding by photo dudes 2990185092_33da29cd63_z resized

Andrew Smiler believes better vocational education for high school boys will improve their lives, their (future) partners’ lives, and the economy as a whole.

There’s no doubt that boys’ educational achievement is not what it used to be. In many ways, it’s better. Federal statistics indicate that more boys attend college these days than ever before. Yes, they’re outnumbered by women on many campuses and in total numbers, but that doesn’t change the fact that more guys attend college every year. Women’s attendance has increased faster, which is why guys are outnumbered. And this pattern of more students, especially more female students, applies to all racial groups in the US.

There’s no doubt that boys’ educational achievement is not what it used to be. In many ways, it’s better.

Yet the fact that young women outnumber young men at all levels of higher education is troubling to some commentators. I don’t think gender isn’t the real issue here. It’s not as though all boys learn one way and all girls learn another way, nor are there certain learning styles that are exclusive to boys and others that are exclusive to girls. Sure, some learning styles are more common to one group than the other, but “more common” is different than “exclusive to.”

The real problem is that our educational system is no longer particularly good at doing its job. Blame whatever you like, more testing, distrust of teachers, insufficient funding, the self-esteem movement, teachers’ (or schools’) inability to adapt to technology or the newer generations, etc. There are certainly enough “causes” out there. Christina Hoff Sommers recently suggested the problem—or the solution, anyway—is to create more tech-oriented programs because those programs have always been and still are male-dominated. She notes that colleges named “Tech” usually have more guys than girls on campus.

I’m not sure why that would further increase the number of dudes who attend college, or how that would somehow change the male:female ratio. The nerds and their kin who make up the bulk of students in tech majors like engineering and computer science courses have always gone to college in large numbers. Honestly, the only 18 year old science whiz I know who isn’t attending college is Peter Parker, aka Spider-Man. And given the overall increase in enrollment, we know the male:female ratio problem isn’t happening because lots of middle class boys are refusing college.

But I think Hoff Sommers may be on to something when she highlights the fact that the group “male” has a stronger preference for working with things (vs. people) than the group “female.” That difference is well established.

♦◊♦

Although the primary purpose of schooling is to provide an education, it’s also meant to prepare students for jobs or for further education that will lead to a job. Over the last few decades, public schooling has also come to be seen as a way out of poverty and thus a social intervention. It’s certainly true that more education means greater income, on average, and being a college graduate is still something to be proud of.

But sending kids to college seems to have become the primary goal for many school systems and the bulk of their students; that doesn’t make sense given who some of the students are, the reality of their lives, and the reality of both high school and college teaching. As a result, we don’t provide a meaningful education for those who can’t, won’t, or shouldn’t go.

We know a lot about which kids drop out of high school or dramatically underachieve. On the underachieving side, we side lots of kids with learning disorders of one sort or another; boys typically outnumber girls here. Although many of them do attend and graduate college, many find academic work exhausting, frustrating, and unfulfilling. If that’s your experience of high school, or K-12 education overall, why sign up for another four years?

Hands-on vocational training, especially where it’s meaningfully integrated with an educational program, has the potential to change that. Although traditionally related to auto mechanics, woodworking, and other blue collar jobs, it can also work for some facets of computer network support, graphic design, and computer aided design (CAD). Building, creating, or designing something that then happens in the real world is a powerful reward and provides a clear sense of accomplishment. From there, and in conversation with an adult who makes their living in the field, it’s easy to imagine working up the ladder or owning your own business. That’s the kind of motivator that can make a boy interested in his schoolwork.

The nerds and their kin who make up the bulk of students in tech majors like engineering and computer science courses have always gone to college in large numbers.

The characteristics of kids who drop out, do poorly, or stop their schooling after high school haven’t really changed in the last fifty years or so. Those kids are particularly likely to be growing up in or near poverty, be raised by a single parent, have parents who either didn’t complete high school or did not attend college, or have a family member with a severe physical limitation or mental health problem. The combination of low parental education and low family income typically means the child attends a relatively impoverished school, has less access to non-school educational opportunities, and has parents who are less able to help with schoolwork either because it’s beyond their own learning or no parent is available; the last might be the result of illness, physical or mental, or work schedule (evenings only, two jobs, etc.). There’s also a good chance that parent had their first child before they turned 20. The negative effects of early parenthood – less education, lower wages, and greater likelihood of being in jail or on public assistance – are about the same for boys as they are for girls. This is the cycle of poverty. Providing these boys with education and training that provides them with directly employable skills, as well as an employer that might very well hire them, will do more to ease their financial status than promising them something good will happen in four more years, especially if they have to take out loans to attend college.

Germany, for example, was well-regarded for providing students on the non-university track with a two or three year internship throughout high school where they’d learn marketable skills. Those internships were half- or full-day, paid (at least after the first year), and routinely lead to jobs. Students’ coursework was more applied: language courses had more business correspondence and less Shakespeare while math courses had more accounting and less pre-calculus. Although not the white collar, prestigious careers like engineering that Hoff Summers is imagining, IT professionals, designers, and draftsmen make good money. So do folks in the more “traditional” vocations like plumbers, carpenters, and electricians. Many of those jobs are difficult to export.

The German system has its problems and was severely tested after reunification. The most vexing problem to implementation in the US would be tracking. Students choose either the collegiate or vocational track around age 15 and, in the German system, were not able to switch out. As we know, separate is not equal, so there would be real risk of creating a permanent underclass by always steering those kids into the vocational track. That said, I don’t think we’re doing kids who aren’t going to attend college any favors by giving them the same education as their college-bound peers. Wouldn’t they be better served by providing an education that will lead to a good paying job and give them (some) of the knowledge they need to manage others or run their own business?

♦◊♦

I admit that better vocational education in high school won’t change the gender imbalance at the college level. After all, most college majors lead to jobs dealing with people, not things, so there’s a bias towards fields that women are more likely than men to choose. Maybe it’s time to rethink who should go to college and what purpose it serves. Expanded and meaningful technical education would help keep boys who aren’t college-ready from getting stuck in dead end, low paying jobs for the rest of their lives. And that would probably help them lead more fulfilling lives, make them better partners and fathers, diminish the school-to-prison pipeline, and help give us a more stable economy.

 

–image from Photo Dudes/flickr

NOW TRENDING ON GMP TV

Flight or Fight
Forever Boogies
Are You A Narcissist?

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Andrew Smiler

Andrew Smiler, PhD is a therapist, evaluator, author, and speaker residing in Winston-Salem, North Carolina (USA). He is the author of “Challenging Casanova: Beyond the stereotype of promiscuous young male sexuality” and co-author, with Chris Kilmartin, of “The Masculine Self (5th edition)”. He is a past president of the Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity and has taught at Wake Forest University and SUNY Oswego. Dr. Smiler's research focuses on definitions of masculinity. He also studies normative aspects of sexual development, such as age and perception of first kiss, first “serious” relationship, and first intercourse among 15-25 year olds. Follow him @AndrewSmiler.

Comments

  1. Nicely written. As someone working in public education I see (what I think) is a scary trend in equating college with success. While I think it’s great to encourage students to go that route I feel a side effect is that some students believe that is the only road to success, while in many cases technical education would do wonders for them.

  2. Andrew Smiler says:

    Thanks Pat. I very much agree: we’re so focused on college/continuing education that we’re not addressing the needs, wants, and futures of half (or more) of the kids in our schools.

  3. I teach high school English, and while this statement may make me the worst English teacher ever/I see the value in teaching classic texts, it gets so frustrating to teach some of the more highbrow concepts to students I know aren’t benefitting rather than focusing on things like analyzing non-fiction or just basic strong writing skills. I could go on all day about this.

    • Andrew Smiler says:

      Yes. We need greater flexibility in the curriculum so that we can 1) teach kids at the level they’re at and 2) give teachers the space to adapt the curriculum so they can use materials that are easier for the kids to connect to.

    • Andrew Smiler says:

      I don’t think it makes you the worst teach ever. I think that comment shows that you care more about what your students need than some abstract concept of “what’s best for them.”

  4. Veronica Grace says:

    My concern is will we have jobs for anyone who goes through vocational training? I think the more options available for success the better, this “college or you’re a loser” crap is not working. I think we also need to work on it from the other side and make sure there are jobs in those areas. We can train people like champs if they get done and the only jobs available are at walmart and fast food we’ve not done enough to change the system.

    Also, there are going to be more and more people who would love to go to college who can’t afford it, so if we had more vocational training (and jobs) that left an option for people to work before or during college that would be excellent as well.

    • Andrew Smiler says:

      Hi Veronica,

      I agree that there are real issues around the jobs these kids would potentially get. One of the strengths of the German system was that they weren’t trying to warehouse the kids via internships, so they restricted the number of internships at any given employer, thus increasing the chances that the student who had a 2-3 year internship with that employer would have a good chance of getting hired by that company.
      I agree that as more & more folks truly get priced out of college, we need to have better & meaningful options for them. THis is one route to providing those options.

      From a different angle, we’re not currently training students who stop their education after high school to do anything except “flip burgers,” so while this isn’t perfect, it would be better than what we’ve currently got. Many other countries are able to minimize this problem by 1) having federally controlled curriculum, 2) limiting university attendance to 10 or 15% of high school grads, and 3) having a reasonably high level of coordination between the education sector and the business sector, which allows schools to adjust their curriculum in directions that match expected job growth. We do things very, very differently here.

  5. Hi Andrew

    What you describe from Germany sounds a bit like the system we have in my country.
    The problem is that even with options like the one you want, the kids with problems still drop out from this.

    Two researchers
    Sidsel Natland and Maja Rasmussen ( HiOA) looked at why. They found that the problems was not mainly to found at school but it was caused by all the personal problem the kids had,and the chaotic situation at home. Parents problems like alcohol, mental disorders etc. . overwhelming problems. To be able to cope and complete this education they needed support from persons not connected to school.

    And as a psychologist you know that already Andrew.

    • Andrew Smiler says:

      Hi Iben,

      There are a number of variations on this scheme, and most (all?) of the European nations have something of this sort.

      You are right that the most compelling reasons for why kids drop out are almost always about the home, not the schools, and there’s very little that schools can do to fix what’s going on at home. But this article isn’t just about preventing kids from dropping out, it’s also about that ~50% of US teens who graduate high school and do not immediately start college. Some of them have substantial home issues, similar to the kids who do drop out, but some of them don’t have those issues or have relatively mild versions of those problems. Or, as with kids with learning disabilities, school is just a bad fit & something of a nightmare, so why sign up for 4 more years?

      There’s a line of research known as “resilience” that examines how/why kids are able to overcome the odds, including kids who are at high statistical risk for dropping out. The biggest factor that differentiates the resilient kids from the non-resilient kids is that the resilient kids develop a strong connection to one non-parental adult; they trust that person, turn to them for advice, and get help from them. While the vocational education programs I’m describing wouldn’t address the home situation at all, it would expose these kids to a set of adults who might become those trusted folks & help get the kids through.

  6. Jody Collier asked years ago- where are the qualified welders who can pass the drug test?
    Why feed the student loan insanity when one could get into the plumbing business for a fraction of the money?
    Check out Keith Fenner of TurnWright or Tom Lipton of Oxtool and tell me if you don’t wish your doctor and divorce attorney was as competent of these 2 stellar mechanics.
    The repair of a leaky faucet cannot be outsourced to an Asian slave- nor can the repair of a roof, car, or road.
    If we could find another dozen carpenter qualified to do board form work we’d be on schedule.
    By definition men change their physical environment and any man who disagrees with that statement doth protest too much.

    • Andrew Smiler says:

      I mostly agree with you JAD, but I know several guys whose ability to change their environment is limited to hanging pictures & moving furniture around. I admit, that’s changing the environment, but I wouldn’t trust these guys with any type of power tool (at least, not at their present skill level).

  7. Andrew- yes one of my best friends asks to borrow a saw a few years ago- I ask sure what kind?
    Sawzall, skill, hand, chain…
    And he replies the kind that comes with you attached…

  8. John Anderson says:

    Vocational training has been offered as a solution for both men and women especially since the cost of higher education has placed it out of the reach of so many people. Vocational training will probably help especially boys, but that shouldn’t be a panacea to prevent us from addressing the reasons why boys don’t go to college. Teaching styles favor girls? Why change the teaching styles, just give boys something else doesn’t sound like the best solution.

    Research has found that many men have shunned the debt associated with higher education. Could a solution be to adopt the European model where the state pays the tuition? Research has shown that Hispanic males feel an obligation to assist their families financially so opt for work over school. Could expanding work / study in conjunction with free tuition remedy that issue? Research has shown that coaching has a disproportionally positive impact on men and boys, but also helps women and girls. Could the widespread adoption of coaching even out the numbers?

    Sure there should be alternatives to higher education, but that shouldn’t be an excuse not to fix higher ed. BTW none of the suggestions I’ve offered would fail to assist girls.

  9. This is actually an argument I and my fellow friends in education have been making for years. Not every high school student SHOULD be in college–so the concept of forcing every student to take “college prep classes” is ridiculous. Much like the German system, the concept of teaching kids skills that will allow them to have a good life is important. Otherwise, we impart upon them a half-assed education that is nowhere good enough for actual college learning (That lies in the honors and AP classes).

    As for the segregation aspect, I think kids should be allowed to switch back if they want. But teaching kids useful skills that will allow them to have a wonderful life and make good money is equally important as education. And honestly, many blue collar jobs pay more than jobs requiring college education, so it isn’t necessarily a classist response. Yes, Doctor’s make a lot of money, but teachers do not. Plumbers tend to make a far better living wage than teacher’s.

    Hence, there is a level of balance inherent in that kind of system. And to be honest, forcing the 45% of kids into college prep classes where they get average grades does them a disservice in life. I am a huge fan of education, but these kids would be far better off in life never having taken physics, chemistry, or Calculus. Put those five to ten classes to use teaching them carpentry or electrical work, etc. Give them a head start rather than a guarantee of low paying jobs for at least a time outside high school.

Trackbacks

  1. […] probably wasn’t the primary thing on your post-high school radar. In fact, it may not have been on the radar at all. If it was on the radar, odds are you—or […]

Speak Your Mind

*