Social Context Critical Inquiry 2017

Vocational Education A Critical Inquiry Aileen Davidson & Ward Huckabay - February 12, 2017

Does our emphasis on Public Education undermine the value of Vocational Education?

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION - DAVIDSON & HUCKABAY

1

Introduction “If you go back to 1800, everybody was poor. I mean everybody. The Industrial Revolution kicked in, and a lot of countries benefitted, but by no means everyone.” —Bill Gates When considering the history of vocational education (VE) in Canada, it is difficult to determine which critical event(s) in history directly influenced the creation of the discipline, as well as the thoughts and attitudes that surround VE. Hypothetically, we could go back as far as the English War of the Roses which saw the destruction of the majority of English aristocracy. The succeeding King, Henry VII, had to effectively raise the status of the lower nobility, which was previously unheard of. This action had a profound effect on the thoughts of people at the time. With the idea of Social Mobility in mind, the proceeding centuries developed a different kind of attitude towards what individuals could with their lives. Depending on what someone knew, or how much wealth they had, meant they were able to maneuver in a changing economy. Cue the Industrial Revolution. Labour began to change from the micro-economies of rural farming, to factories, mechanics, colonization and large scale movement into cities. Soon after, ideas of public education developed, and although this might not seem related to social mobility and changes in labour, those developments influenced the persisting stigma and cultural attitudes toward VE.

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION - DAVIDSON & HUCKABAY

2

Was Public Education the Death of Vocation Education?

“Public health service should be as fully organized and as universally incorporated into our governmental system as is public education. The returns are a thousand fold in economic benefits, and infinitely more in reduction of suffering and promotion of human happiness.” — Herbert Hoover Although this question is exaggerated and purposefully controversial, I think it is worth asking how the development of public education (PE) affected future attitudes towards vocational education (VE). The introduction to this critical inquiry was an attempt to link socio-economic changes in history to persisting attitudes towards what kind of education is valuable? As for the dearly departed President Hoover, his statement (quoted above) was more to do with healthcare than it was to do with education. However, his association with education is an interesting one because it illuminates a couple of assumptions that may still be held today, and they are thus: 1. PE is vitally important to producing economic benefits. 2. PE is the cornerstone in determining the quality of life for people. When Mr. Hoover made this statement, he was speaking from a context that was largely different than the context we are experiencing today. The 1930’s was a hard time for a lot of individuals, but I think Mr. Hoover might have been over-relying on the supposed benefits of PE. In order to unpack this further I think it is a good idea to look into the correlation between public education and economic benefits, to see how much one influences the other. According to researchers Lyons, Randhawa and Paulson, the context of a nation is usually what determines what is most economically beneficial (140). During 1912, the Canadian Federal Government determined that public education was not the most economically beneficial form of education because, at the time, Canada was primarily invested in its agricultural economy. The members of both the federal and provincial government were also members in their agricultural districts, which helped to form a part of Canada’s past identity (141). The Canadian government even allocated large sums of tax money to provinces (based on population) so VOCATIONAL EDUCATION - DAVIDSON & HUCKABAY

3

that they could invest in their agricultural economy. The provinces of Alberta, Quebec, Ontario, and Nova Scotia invested their shares in vocational institutes centered around the context of the Canadian economy at that time. Furthermore, the vocational demands of World War I exaggerated the need for Canada to diversify its technical and industrial education. The year 1919 saw the same amount of money that was afforded to agricultural agendas given to polytechnic education (141). It is clear that the context of a society can, indeed, determine what form of education is valued. Also, it is important to understand that part of the reason that the value of vocational education during the beginning of the twentieth century was encouraged partly by the availability of vocations. This availability of jobs appears to be a determining factor of how vocational education is organized today.

Now, what happens when the context changes? The post World War I context saw the diversification of vocational industry, Hoover’s context of the 1930s economic depression changed how people viewed life, and in that, education. The heading of this entire segment is “Was Public Education the death of Vocational Education?” and in light of the research, I would like to claim that it was not. Our current emphasis on PE in Canada is because of a change in economic activity that made VE less viable.

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION - DAVIDSON & HUCKABAY

4

The economic disparity of the 1930s constrained the amount of wealth that could be distributed to the vocational education industries, and as jobs began to disappear, that training became less culturally valuable (142). At this point, vocational education got a second wind because of Canada’s role in World War II. At this point in time, the value of VE was further by provincial government implementation of Composite High Schools (142). In other words, it seems clear that VE is affected by both the surrounding context and federal/provincial initiatives (what they want to do). Education and Social Mobility: From Rural to Urban

How do the attitudes of those who hold power affect education? “There is no doubt that "rustics and bumpkins" do not pull the levers of cultural, political, and economic power either in the US or elsewhere on this planet. It is this fact more than any other that accounts for the invisibility of rural issues, whether among academics or other power-wielding groups” (Howley 261). The Industrial Revolution sparked a large migration of people from rural areas to the city. Society began to focus less on agriculture and more on industry. The centres and distribution of cultural, economic, and political power began to shift. Today, almost all of the power over these three aspects of society are located in urban centres. Cultural trends, economics, and politics all focus on the metropolitan space. Considering that these spaces encompass about eighty percent of the population in Canada, this consolidation of power makes sense. However, this has created a disparity between urban and rural spaces and issues. Rural issues have become invisible. “Nothing outside the city matters,” seems to be the general attitude of urban consumers, who remain blissfully unaware of where their food comes from. (Or, worse, use their ignorance of any agricultural processes to bash food producers.) These kinds of attitudes towards rural culture is prominent in the education system, where students are pushed toward academic programs, destined for white-collar jobs, forgetting that it is the blue-collar workers who make society work on its most basic level. The farmers, drill operators, construction workers, electricians, truck drivers, janitors, and mechanics are the ones that keep society functioning. Someone has to do these jobs, but the public education system tends to push students away from these options unless they are students who are viewed as less intelligent or less likely to succeed. The best and brightest are certainly not being encouraged to pursue these careers, because the people who participate in these types of lifestyles are considered “backward,” unintelligent, or less successful. This is a problem in urban centres and rural areas alike. Many small communities have seen their best and brightest leave for destinations that provide better academic or economic opportunities. The population of those in rural areas is aging. They watch young adults leave for the sake of social and academic power, while the cultural, societal, and educational institutions of rural areas erode away. At the same time, the economy declines. VOCATIONAL EDUCATION - DAVIDSON & HUCKABAY

5

Social Mobility and Geographical Attachment How do rural attitudes differ from urban, and how does this relate to VE?

While the education system pushes students toward academic pursuits and urban centres, most parents in rural areas are hoping for young people to stay in the community. Some may claim that this attitude limits students’ educational aspirations. However, “there are indications that rural communities simultaneously generate important social benefits that tend to be devalued by educators and researchers alike” (Howley 62). There are many benefits to living in a rural area, and in adopting a rural lifestyle, not only for the individual, but also for society as a whole. Those living in rural areas not only farm or ranch to produce the food that society needs to survive, but many from rural areas work in trades such as mechanics, construction, and transportation of goods, which are all necessary for a functioning society. Rural students’ aspirations for post-graduate school are lower than those of their non-rural peers, however, most of these students do plan to continue with some form of postsecondary education. “McCracken and Barnicas found that rural youth are somewhat less likely to plan to attend college, and more likely to plan for vocational training, than their non-rural peers” (Howley 64). If this is a common aspiration for rural youth, and if these are more economically viable in their contexts, why should the school system push them toward academia? The problem may be the public school system’s underlying urban attitude toward vocational schooling. Traditional rural values that would encourage vocational pursuits are often seen to be limiting. For example, Reid argued “that rural youth have limited views of the relationship between educational attainment and occupational options…the implication is that rural youth are, to some degree, ‘settling’ for poverty because they do not properly perceive the influence of education on career options” (64). However, the rural context promotes a very different view than the urban context does here. Rural context promotes, largely, an attachment to place. It is not necessarily that rural norms do not prioritize education, or that the school systems in rural areas are deficient or encourage students to “settle.” Rather, rural values are characterized by both space and place. This is “characterized by relationships with land, a sense of connection to nature, and rootedness in local relationships…place, for rural people, involves the meanings and relationships associated with land, nature, and local history and knowledge” (65). The problem with the attitude differences between urban and rural is not that rural people are backwards, or deficient, or anti-intellectual. Rural people do, however, tend to value place over academic or even economic opportunity. Rural and urban groups value different things, and because the power is in the urban areas, there is often a tension surrounding rural schooling. It revolves around the “tiresome historical complaint always lodged by urban-cosmopolitan elites against the rural population: ‘Why can't you be smarter and better?’ It is no accident that rural people are advised to ‘work smarter, not harder’ - the advice is prefigured by centuries of ignorance about the meanings of rural life. In short, economic power and ideology VOCATIONAL EDUCATION - DAVIDSON & HUCKABAY

6

structure our ignorance of matters rural. Education's (that is, schooling's) special role as a servant of that power renders the ignorance especially profound” (262). Rural schools, being reformed by public education to fit into a “one size fits all” standardized curriculum, are faced with the “complex question of who the schools should serve - the local community, the larger society, or some combination of both” (265). At a time when rural communities and rural schools are struggling to survive due to migration of families and young people, it may be beneficial to question the extent to which certain aspects of the curriculum are being taught in schools and what can be done to regain the uniqueness of rural context in rural education. This will benefit not only rural economy, but also economy on a larger scale by creating more skilled and entrepreneurial workers for the labour market, even if this causes a shift in focus from academic pursuits.

Solution: Vocational Education? Does VE fit rural contexts better than PE?

“It is growing increasingly evident that the old vocational agriculture programs better fit the modern needs of rural America and provide a more effective stimulus to economic growth than do these newer, more specialized vocational education programs” (Rosenfeld 272) Rural youth are often faced with conflicting values and attitudes. On one hand, due to farming crisis and declining economies of rural communities, these youth may find limited economic choices if they stay in these areas. However, place and rural lifestyle and values are especially meaningful to them. They find that “they must negotiate the tension between social mobility and geographic rootedness” (76). When this comes to teaching, it may be important for teachers “to consider that encouraging rural children to acquire postgraduate education is not an unmediated social good, particularly if youth view such encouragement as pressure to leave” (77). Vocational Education is not a beneficial option in all contexts, and is highly impacted by attitudes and policies. In a rural context, where hard work and practical application is highly valued, attitudes toward VE are more welcoming. The policies of the public education system, on the other hand, are not necessarily conducive for providing VE on a secondary level. In 1966, the Canadian federal government announced that it would withdraw its funds from the field of Vocational Education, and increase its assistance to fund Universities. The provinces eventually also stopped funding VE, and training for skilled labour ceased to be a priority in the education system. However, implementing VE, especially in rural contexts, may be beneficial for rural communities and economy, which, in turn, benefits the greater economy through creating and sustaining jobs in agriculture, industry, and the energy sector. Investments in VE could be viewed as “an approach to increasing economic competitiveness and reducing poverty in the triangle of productivity, employability and sustainable growth” (Wallenborn 181). Having the ability to implement these programs in rural schools could positively impact the population and VOCATIONAL EDUCATION - DAVIDSON & HUCKABAY

7

sustainability of rural lifestyles and jobs that are necessary and valuable for society on the whole.

Context determines what is valued

Policies are shaped by Context

Diagram of our argument

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION - DAVIDSON & HUCKABAY

Attitudes are developed based on Policies

Attitude reflects Societal values and expectations

8