PDK International | Phi Delta Kappan: Howlett V89N07 March 2008

• Search for more Kappan articles in the Publication Archives • Join or start a discussion about this article in the PDK Forum
• To enjoy free access to complete issues online Join PDK or Subscribe to the Phi Delta Kappan today

Industrial Arts: Call It What You Want, the Need Still Exists

Teaching "technological literacy" at the expense of hands-on skills training is wrong for the students, wrong for the economy, and wrong for the nation, Mr. Howlett argues.

By James Howlett

WE CLEARLY have a division of thinking within the education community. Unfortunately, that division is within the disciplines that have devoted themselves to the task of passing on to the next generation the body of knowledge that has been the hallmark of progress for the "industrialized" world. Len Litowitz and Scott Warner -- and apparently the entire International Technology Education Association (ITEA) -- assert that "technology education" has taken over the teaching of industrial arts. Perhaps.

Litowitz and Warner summarize the history of vocational education and argue that industrial arts education is no longer necessary. Their goal of "developing technologically literate citizens" is admirable, and it is obvious that much time and thought have been devoted to the conceptualization of "technology education." What is missing from the decision to provide students with a program to ensure "technological literacy" at the expense of skills training is the research and accompanying data to justify the changes. This is a philosophical decision based on an effort to divine the future.

The ITEA Standards for Technological Literacy advocate that "all students in K-12 can become technologically literate and should be given the opportunity to do so." How is that to be done? Litowitz and Warner talk extensively about "contemporary technology education curricula," but no course titles are offered. Let us assume for the moment that we have a class titled "Power Mechanics," in which we have incorporated the concepts of applying Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM). Litowitz and Warner suggest three questions that might be asked in a technology education course to explore various sides of contemporary issues: "Do robots in industry really eliminate more jobs than they create? Are hybrid vehicles really better for the environment than gasoline-powered vehicles? Is the use of more nuclear power generation desirable or even inevitable?" Ask these questions of most high school students -- even in the best of circumstances -- and you will be greeted with a wave of apathy. In the arena of high school electives, the survival of a class depends on having a "hook" -- something that ignites immediate interest, something that grabs students' attention and holds it for 36 weeks. These questions do not.

On curricular matters, Litowitz and Warner claim that vocational education "focuses on trade preparation, whereas technology education is broader" in its content and intended audience. I'm not sure how they arrive at this conclusion. Most vocational education teachers rely on federal funding to stay current with industry and to purchase equipment, and one of the requirements of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Improvement Act of 2006 is that the curriculum must "teach all aspects of the industry." A tall order, indeed, but surely not a narrow one. Moreover, I am confused by their reference to a "contemporary computer-aided drafting course." Is there any other kind? I have taught CAD (computer-assisted design) classes since the mid-1980s, and the beauty of teaching CAD is that students can be challenged to apply all their knowledge in new ways. Notice the word "apply." All good high school industrial technology/arts teachers look for opportunities to expand their skills training with mind-stretching activities.

Certainly, "contemporary technology education curricula serve to enhance the development of such core subjects as mathematics, science, and reading by adding variety, relevance, and purpose to a student's academic program of study." Good stuff! That is precisely the point of the original article. It was an affirmation, a restatement of the content and rigor taught in today's courses that remain the core of industrial technology/arts: Wood, Metals/Machines, Auto, Drafting, and Welding. Where then lies the basis of their criticism? It seems to be in the method of delivery. If "industrial arts" is passé and no longer relevant in the education system, then are we to believe that "hands-on skills training" is no longer needed in the K-12 curriculum? If that is what they mean, they are wrong! Wrong for our students and wrong for the economy of the nation.

The Economic Costs

In The 2010 Meltdown, Edward Gordon notes that "70 million baby boomers, some highly skilled, will exit the work force in the next 18 years, with only 40 million workers coming in. . . . Throughout the entire economy," he continues, "the United States lacks adequate numbers of appropriately skilled workers to support high standards in personal or professional services, or properly maintain the physical and technological infrastructure upon which everyone relies and takes for granted. . . . The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) predicts that in 2010 the economy will support about 167 million jobs, but the population will be able to fill only 157 million of them."1

As an example of what our economy needs, I cite a recent news release that quotes by Robert Balgenorth, president of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California: "To keep pace with growing construction demands and to replace workers who will retire, California will need to produce about 30,000 skilled construction workers per year from now until 2014, according to Employment Development Department projections. That need is likely to continue far into the future."2 And this is just construction. A review by the U.S. Department of Labor reveals a comparable shortage of skilled workers in all the areas traditionally taught in the "old industrial arts" classes.

By itself, "contemporary technology education" will not fill this need. As Dan Walters, syndicated columnist for the Sacramento Bee, wrote:

Manufacturing, construction, auto repair jobs, and dozens of other industries are feeling the . . . pinch of hiring and retaining sufficient trained workers. There is, however, a larger context to the problem. . . . The state has sorely neglected vocational education in the popular, if wrongheaded, drive to direct every high school student into college, even though no more than a fifth of high school graduates will, in fact, obtain four-year degrees. A recent survey by the Public Policy Institute of California found that nearly two-thirds of Californians believe that someone must have a college education to succeed, which is patently wrong, as the highly paid technical and blue-collar jobs now going begging attest. Politicians and the education establishment feed that canard through policies that elevate college preparation above all other considerations. . . .

At the same time, however, California is losing millions of potential replacements for those aging baby boom workers by allowing nearly a third of high school students to drop out without obtaining diplomas.3

Bill Milliken founded Communities in Schools, a nonprofit organization, to help kids stay in school. His research shows that kids have five needs that must be met before they will learn and grow. One of those needs is "a marketable skill to use upon graduation."4

Costs to Students

California schools have embarked on a narrow path of "A-G requirements" (University of California admission requirements) as mandatory for all high school students. Discussions with the vast majority of counselors and teachers indicate that those who work with high school students do not agree with this approach. Alas, it is a top-down decision, with test scores once again driving curricular changes that will prove to be detrimental. Since 1980, California has seen the loss of over 80% of its industrial arts/technology classes, and its high school dropout rate has risen as well.

Deputy Superintendent Patrick Ainsworth of the California state department of education says that the dropout rate for secondary students enrolled in 2004-05 was roughly 30%. However, for those students taking a sequence of courses in career/technical education -- skill classes -- the rate of graduation was 84%. Just 16% dropped out. A study done by James Kulik noted that high-risk students are eight to 10 times less likely to drop out in the 11th and 12th grades if they enroll in a career/technical program rather than in a general program. Relevant data compiled by GetREAL, an organization of manufacturing and other businesses, show career/technical education courses, teachers, and enrollments have declined by more than 20% in the decade since 1997, while "non-graduates" have increased by 25%.5 In short, as career/technical education courses disappear, the dropout rate rises. And the problem is larger in absolute terms than it appears because over that same decade the total number of students increased.

What many of these students want is a skill, a skill that at the end of high school will enable them to begin a career that will support a car, a spouse, and perhaps a family. Achieving "technological literacy" does not necessarily pay the bills.

High dropout rates have another side that is not often discussed. Dolores Carr, district attorney for Santa Clara County, California, is concerned about high school dropouts and states her point clearly:

Recent research from the California Dropout Research Project shows that dropouts are more likely to end up in jail or on welfare, at great expense to themselves and others. And because they tend to earn less, they will pay fewer taxes over the course of a lifetime. In fact, researchers calculate that California suffers more than $46 billion in economic losses from the 120,000 20-year-olds each year who have not completed high school, including $12 billion from increased crime alone. Fight crime by fighting [the] high school dropout rate.6

Looking to the Future

In 2006 the California Industrial Technology Educators Association (CITEA) adopted the following statement:

Career-Technical Education is organized educational programs offering sequences of courses directly related to preparing individuals for employment in current or emerging occupations requiring other than a baccalaureate or advanced degree.

These work force preparation programs include subjects in industrial and technology education, business education, agriculture, medical occupations, etc. They provide a variety of instructional strategies including competency-based applied learning that contributes to an individual's occupation-specific skills, higher-order reasoning, problem solving skills, and academic knowledge necessary for economic independence as a productive and contributing member of society and prepare participants for both postsecondary education and employment.

The essential test of whether or not a course of study is Career-Technical Education is found in whether or not the course provides entry-level preparation for a career that is essentially technical in nature, and that does not require a postsecondary or advanced degree.7

From middle school through high school, students need not only the opportunity to explore a variety of trade skills but also the opportunity to learn a skill well. It is in the teaching of these skills that a wise teacher incorporates those STEM elements that are appropriate. We need to staunch the dropout hemorrhage and provide students with an entry to a career that can be the basis of further education. The CITEA definition above uses language that is inclusive, student-focused, and drawn primarily from the federal definition. Educators need to be equally inclusive in their thinking.

1. Edward E. Gordon, The 2010 Meltdown: Solving the Impending Jobs Crisis (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2005), p. 37.

2. Robert L. Balgenorth, president, State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, available at www.citea.org. Click on resources.

3. Dan Walters, "Health Care Triple Whammy," Sacramento Bee, 6 November 2007.

4. William E. Milliken, "What Do Kids Need Before They Graduate?," www.cisnet.org/media/news.asp?ID=2292, 31 March 2005.

5. GetREAL, "Relevance in Education and Learning," press release, 12 November 2007; more information is available at www.getrealca.com.

6. Dolores Carr, "Fight Crime by Fighting High School Dropout Rate," San Jose Mercury News, 3 October 2007.

7. Available at www.citea.org. Click on resources.

JAMES HOWLETT is a past president of the California Industrial and Technology Education Association Foundation, Diamond Springs, Calif.