Got this Presser from the NH Dept of Education. Actually, I get a lot of them (don’t know if I get them all). At first blush I just went through it and then one word caught my eye: Equitable.
Equitable. You know what that PC code/dog whistle means, right? Quotas. EXACT Quotas. If some subgroup of any kind doesn’t have the EXACT same representation of something as they do in the general population. Equitable Representation. Not Equality of Outcome. That was my outlook at reading the Presser”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 26, 2021
Communications Office
Comms@doe.nh.gov
(603) 271-0448The New Hampshire Department of Education Publishes Research Brief
“Increasing Equitable Access to Career and Technical Education”
Not INCREASING access for all – just for subgroups that are underrepresented. So there MUST be some kind of bias, right?
CONCORD: The New Hampshire Department of Education has published “Increasing Equitable Access to Career and Technical Education,” a research brief summarizing the Department’s efforts to identify barriers to high school students’ equitable access to career and technical education (CTE), and to determine potential strategies to address these barriers. Career and technical education gives students opportunities for hands-on learning that can earn college credit and help them explore in-demand career pathways. The research and resulting brief were prepared for the Department by RMC Research, an independent research organization based in New Hampshire.
Look, there may be barriers but there also may be a differing sense of “what is important” to the students. Ya know, individual choices?
“We heard from a wide array of stakeholders about the great value of CTE to students, but also learned about the challenges that make it difficult for many New Hampshire students to access these potentially life-changing opportunities,” said Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut. “The information shared by CTE leaders, students, counselors and many others is helping us find ways to ensure that all students are able to participate in CTE.”
“This research confirmed many of the important issues CTE leaders and other educators have been aware of for many years“, added Eric Frauwirth, Director of the Bureau of Career Development. “Now we have a set of strategies to explore, and will continue to engage with stakeholders and local communities to determine the best options for the students and families they serve.”
“for many years” – If there have been barriers, why haven’t they been addressed before? That aside, what are they going to do about them?
The research brief is available for download on the Department’s Bureau of Career Development page. For more information, contact Eric Frauwirth, Director, Bureau of Career Development at (603) 271-3867 or eric.c.frauwirth@doe.nh.gov.
Link to the research brief ~ Increasing Equitable Access to Career and Technical Education
Yeah, I had my stereotype antennas up – so I gave the the report a read:
nh-DOE-cte-research-briefI wasn’t disappointed that my low bar for SJWness was exceeded. All the expected buzzwords and vocabulary phrasing that I expected were there. A few notes:
- Page 1 – right off the bat: “stakeholders” is there any worse word (other than “community” but that’s for another rant), lately, than this? While there is a need to include the right people and push their right buttons, “stakeholders” always seem to be busybodies that really aren’t involved in the process upfront, aren’t doing the teaching or direct overhead (e.g., Admin), or involved in the direct output. They are outside the process. Look, I’m interested in the process in a general kind of way but NO WAY should I be allowed to become a “stakeholder”.
Some may take exception to MY definition but in other areas, as far as I’m concerned, it’s a toxic term.
- Page 2 through Page 4 – Kvetching about the main complaint begins. The host school where the Vo-Tech (old school, I am) / Career and Technical Education (CTE) has the most students enrolled when compared to the other schools in that “Region”: 71 to 30%. Their example (and in my Region):
THIS IS A PROBLEM!!! At least for them. Franklin is low because it is the furthest away 13 miles (30 minutes per MapQuest)
- Page 5 – at least they didn’t blame this on the other stuff that normally pops up in “Equity” discussions:
In speaking with New Hampshire stakeholders and examining enrollment data, the evaluation found that the primary factor impacting students’ participation in CTE was whether they attended a host or sending high school within their region, rather than factors such as gender, race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, special education status, or English learner status.
But that didn’t stop them from looking!
However, analyses of national data show that students face disparities in CTE access based on race and other demographic attributes. Likewise, RMC Research’s analysis of New Hampshire’s CTE center enrollment data indicates some disparities in student attendance based on gender, race and limited English proficient status (see Appendix A). Additionally, some stakeholders reported specific incidences of students experiencing CTE access barriers based on their English language proficiency or disability status
Hey, when one is looking for Critical Race Theory reasons, you’ll find them. Guaranteed.
- Page 7 – 8 And then the hammer hits. I’m not going to go through each one. The overall theme, it seems, that that school districts themselves have to be regionalized for the reasons listed. These “independents”, IMHO, must wrap their routines to fit the CTE’s. Two, they have to change their outlooks on courses, grading, and graduation as well; all to make it “equitable” across students and all districts.
And no “stigma“. Personal opinion: “stigma” has been stigmatized to the point that it’s absolutely useless. But in this case, the stigma (college vs CTE) is one that the Educational-Industrial Complex did to itself by decades of emphasizing “GO TO COLLEGE! GO TO COLLEGE!”.
- Page 10 – Ah, we come first circle: “Expand CTE programs in local high schools.”. Isn’t this how regional centers were started and outsourced from the local school systems? And now BACK to them they go. I’m not complaining on this – merely stating that the Powers May Be are recognizing that the outsourcing, now that a coupla few decades have passed, that perhaps the pendulum went too far?
OK, I’m going long again so time to jerk the chain short a bit:
- Setting up a “complete” high school (academic and CTE together) instead of students moving from one school to another – good idea
- Not good in forcing a change in weighting for GPA. Not all courses are equal and making a forcing to do so is wrong.
Read it and think for yourselves (as always) but I’m not impressed with the report.
