Why this is a bad idea...

        Over the past month I have been posting thoughts on Linus Wright’s 13 points covered in “Restructuring Public Education for the 21st Century.” I’ve covered three of his points, and plan to cover the rest of them over the next 10 weeks (including today), posting the thoughts on Fridays.

        This week, we’ll look at his sixth point, which suggests taking vocational courses and transferring the cost to community colleges. I’m going to tell you why I think it’s a bad idea – and I’m curious to hear if you think it’s a bad idea, as well. The point says:

        6. Transfer high school vocational courses to the Community College, which can provide more comprehensive courses at much lower cost. Using adjunct instructors at community colleges, the cost is approximately one-fifth the cost for the same instruction in public high schools. The excessive cost for vocational course in the high school is the result of (a) using full-time certified teachers, (b) necessary lab and shop equipment, and (c) the necessity of smaller classes for this type of instruction. Contract with a Community College to teach vocational courses in the existing high school facilities for college credit. Community colleges use adjunct instructors at a cost of approximately $2000-$3000 per semester course as opposed to a high school using a full-time certified teacher at a cost of approximately $40,000-$50,000 per year.

            At a cursory glance, it might seem like a good idea. $4,000 to $6,000 a year compared to $40,000 to $50,000 appears to be a saving a lot of money. But looking closer – as I did over a conversation with my lovely wife, Sarah – I think you’ll see flaws in his argument. I will lay them out in four points.

1. Will this cost students extra money?

The first problem I notice is that duel credit programs generally costs students extra money. They have to earn acceptance into the community college, pay tuition (generally not full tuition, but a much cheaper rate), buy books and possibly other materials. For students who intend to attend college, this can seem like a no-brainer – it’s cheaper credit that will likely transfer. But for students who don’t intend to go to college (often for financial reasons), it can seem like too much hassle to jump through these hoops. Or, worse, their family may not have extra money to pay for these costs. Often the students who benefit most from vocational classes are students from lower class families. These students learn valuable skills that can take them directly into the job market, where they can make a decent living and contribute to society. If they can’t afford these classes, are we doing a service to our students with the greatest need? 

2. Doesn’t this create scheduling problems?

            I’m sure most of you have noticed that a class run by a community college would only meet two or three times a week. If they met every day, they would have to pay their adjunct          professors more. How does this fit into a high school schedule (block schedules exempted) where students have a consistent schedule every day?

            But there’s a more important scheduling conflict at hand. For students to participate in these vocational classes (and I know many students who take some sort of ag or shops class ever year of high school) they would, as we mentioned, have to earn acceptance into the community college. This excludes freshmen and sophomores, who aren’t old enough to apply, or would have to take a placement tests that likely has material they haven’t had a chance to learn in order to apply. Students learn skills best, hands-on or not, over time. Cut the time they can take vocational classes down to two years, and you’ve decreased the value of your work force.

            On another note, many school districts are not close enough to any type of college to make this plan happen. This suggestions shows preferential treatment to districts in urban centers at the expense of small community districts.

3. What happens to the full-time teachers the adjunct professors are replacing?

            So far we’ve focused on the effects on students, but now we have to ask ourselves how this affects ag teachers and other vocational teachers in high schools. First, that $40,000 to $50,000 a year he mentions isn’t spent entirely on vocational classes. That is only a part of what a full time teacher does, unless he or she only teaches vocational classes and doesn’t have any other duties (such as organizations related to vocational classes). If Wright eliminates these teachers, he is taking focus off of one of his points (one we haven’t covered – that teacher’s pay should be re-evaluated to match market value – which most would interpret to mean they should be paid more) and putting it on a management-focused style to running schools, instead of a curriculum based style. The past couple of decades indicate that curriculum-based management is much more effective than management-based (but that’s a post for another day!). Is eliminating an entire genre of teachers an excellent option?            

4. What should an adjunct professor get paid, anyhow?

            His whole idea brings up another important idea. Do adjunct professors get paid enough as it is? At one university, the most an adjunct professor could make was a little more than $1,200 per class. That certainly doesn’t pay many bills or support a family. When you consider all of the duties an adjunct professor has – prepping for classes, teaching classes, grading papers, handling issues with students, holding office hours, administering tests, other possible faculty duties AND, in this scenario, driving several times a week to one or more high school to teach vocational classes – that’s hardly a fair compensation by most standards. Is it, then, ethical to take advantage of adjunct professors who don’t get paid enough as it is to save school district’s money? I would say, hardly.