Wednesday, October 5, 2016

One Postsecondary Option Does Not Fit All

I am not a fan of college for all. Students today have a variety of post-secondary options. The average entry level tradesman makes around $40k per year and has limited to no debt. The average college graduate enters the work force at the same level, $40K, but is loaded with about $35,000.00 in debt on average. Many students owe a considerable amount more.

Post-secondary options must  be a cost-benefit analysis. If we make the investment, what will be the return? Will the career choice allow for debt repayment and a reasonable standard of living.


Throughout most of U.S. history, American high school students were routinely taught vocational and job-ready skills along with the three Rs: reading, writing and arithmetic. Indeed readers of a certain age are likely to have fond memories of huddling over wooden workbenches learning a craft such as woodwork or maybe metal work, or any one of the hands-on projects that characterized the once-ubiquitous shop class.


 But in the 1950s, a different philosophy emerged: the theory that students should follow separate educational tracks according to ability. The idea was that the college-bound would take traditional academic courses (Latin, creative writing, science, math) and received no vocational training. Those students not headed for college would take basic academic courses, along with vocational training, or “shop.”
Ability tracking did not sit well with educators or parents, who believed students were assigned to tracks not by aptitude, but by socio-economic status and race. The result being that by the end of the 1950s, what was once a perfectly respectable, even mainstream educational path came to be viewed as a remedial track that restricted minority and working-class students.

The backlash against tracking, however, did not bring vocational education back to the academic core. Instead, the focus shifted to preparing all students for college, and college prep is still the center of the U.S. high school curriculum.

So what’s the harm in prepping kids for college? Won’t all students benefit from a high-level, four-year academic degree program? As it turns out, not really. For one thing, people have a huge and diverse range of different skills and learning styles. Not everyone is good at math, biology, history and other traditional subjects that characterize college-level work. Not everyone is fascinated by Greek mythology, or enamored with Victorian literature, or enraptured by classical music. Some students are mechanical; others are artistic. Some focus best in a lecture hall or classroom; still others learn best by doing, and would thrive in the studio, workshop or shop floor.

And not everyone goes to college. The latest figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show that about 68% of high school students attend college. That means over 30% graduate with neither academic nor job skills.

But even the 68% aren’t doing so well. Almost 40% of students who begin four-year college programs don’t complete them, which translates into a whole lot of wasted time, wasted money, and burdensome student loan debt. Of those who do finish college, one-third or more will end up in jobs they could have had without a four-year degree. The BLS found that 37% of currently employed college grads are doing work for which only a high school degree is required.
It is true that earnings studies show college graduates earn more over a lifetime than high school graduates. However, these studies have some weaknesses. For example, over 53% of recent college graduates are unemployed or under-employed. And income for college graduates varies widely by major – philosophy graduates don’t nearly earn what business studies graduates do. Finally, earnings studies compare college graduates to all high school graduates. But the subset of high school students who graduate with vocational training – those who go into well-paying, skilled jobs – the picture for non-college graduates looks much rosier.

Yet despite the growing evidence that four-year college programs serve fewer and fewer of our students, states continue to cut vocational programs. In 2013, for example, the Los Angeles Unified School District, with more than 600,000 students, made plans to cut almost all of its CTE programs by the end of the year. The justification, of course, is budgetary; these programs (which include auto body technology, aviation maintenance, audio production, real estate and photography) are expensive to operate. But in a situation where 70% of high school students do not go to college, nearly half of those who do go fail to graduate, and over half of the graduates are unemployed or underemployed, is vocational education really expendable? Or is it the smartest investment we could make in our children, our businesses, and our country’s economic future?

The U.S. economy has changed. The manufacturing sector is growing and modernizing, creating a wealth of challenging, well-paying, highly skilled jobs for those with the skills to do them. The demise of vocational education at the high school level has bred a skills shortage in manufacturing today, and with it a wealth of career opportunities for both under-employed college grads and high school students looking for direct pathways to interesting, lucrative careers. Many of the jobs in manufacturing are attainable through apprenticeships, on-the-job training, and vocational programs offered at community colleges. They don’t require expensive, four-year degrees for which many students are not suited.

Monday, October 3, 2016

Lawrence County Economic Profile for September 2016

The following are some conclusions based upon recent information released from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I always find it interesting to see how the Lawrence County population compares to the rest of the state.

A few observations:
  •       Lawrence County is 51.6% (45,466) female and 48.4% (42,616) male.
  • ·         Lawrence County has a total population of 88,062 people.
  • ·         Lawrence County is 93.3% white. The state is 82.6% white.
  • ·         Lawrence County is 4.1% black. The state is 11.7% black.
  • ·         36.1% of Lawrence County residents are 55 or older. 31% of the state is 55 or older.
  • ·         The median age in Lawrence County is 44. The median age in the state is 40.
  • ·         Per capita income in Lawrence County ($38,322) is 80% of the state per capita income ($47,679).
  • ·         Lawrence County median family income ($56,065) is 83% of the state median family income ($67,521).
  • ·         Lawrence County unemployment rate of 6.9% is 1.2% higher than the state average of 5.7%.
  • ·         Lawrence County has a labor force of @ 42,400 people.
  • ·         Lawrence County average wages are $38,816 which are 74% of average wages in the state ($52,160).
  • ·         Lawrence County average entry level wages are $20,780 which are 44% of average entry level wages in the state ($46,550).

Conclusion:
  • ·         Lawrence County is an aging community with a diminishing population.
  • ·         Lawrence County unemployment is higher than state unemployment.
  • ·         Lawrence County wage earners make less than the state average.
     This presents some unique challenges for public education. We have a significant portion of the population that does not have anyone in school and therefore has an idea about education that does not exist.

      As wages decrease and population decreases, so do tax revenues. As a function of government, public education relies primarily on real estate tax revenue. A mill of tax will continue to generate less dollars requiring an increase in millage to produce the same revenue.

      Quite a perplexing dichotomy!