I read the recent article giving the response from each of the candidates for Post 4 on the Fayette Board of Education concerning the recent vote to not apply for a grant from the state. I was one of the three that did not vote to apply for the grant. Dr. [Barry] Marchman has given the major financial reasons for a no vote. The additional reasons for my no vote are given in the following paragraphs.
Part of the proposal called for the removal of second- and third-year courses for Health Sciences/Occupations from the high schools to be placed in a separately located newly renovated space.
For the record, the Board of Education has funded and constructed Health Services labs at each high school. The first lab opened in 1976 at Fayette High. Others opened as each new school came on line. Each school program currently has a Work Place Learning Program with Piedmont and other local health services centers. Students earn their clinical experience through contracts with the centers. There are more than 400 students currently enrolled in the program.
I have seen no internal or external visioning process that has called for the removal of the program from their current location at each school.
From my perspective there is an urgent need to devise a model Work Place Learning Program that involves the maximum number of local businesses and industries so that more of our students, academic, fine arts and career tech can gain real work place experiences. The board has also asked for equipment and curriculum audits of all existing career tech programs to determine what is needed to meet industry standards so that our students receive a first class education in those areas.
The current model of offering a school-based comprehensive curriculum in our high schools was established in 1976 and has been validated each time a new school has opened. Georgia piloted the comprehensive curriculum model in the mid-1960s and each district had the choice to add career tech departments to their existing high schools or develop separate centers.
The choice to use the comprehensive model placed us ahead of most other systems. It would be a step backward to move at this time to alter the model for curriculum offerings that has helped students to perform so well.
The model allows maximum flexibility for students in that they can design their high school program to their needs by taking the academic, fine arts and or career tech classes they want.
Students are restricted in their academic and fine arts choices when enrolled in stand-alone career tech centers since instructional time is lost due to travel between the center and their home school.
Currently 90 percent of our students go on to some form of post-secondary education. Therefore, our career tech programs serve as an enriching experience to some of those students as well as a career path for those going directly into the work place.
Students are currently enrolled in joint enrollment or early admissions programs with colleges and universities or technical colleges. Students can also move between high schools to attend classes not offered in their school.
The idea that we need a separate stand-alone career academy has been a diversion in doing what is needed to ensure we continue to offer a school-based comprehensive curriculum to our students.
The original model presented called for the closing of all career tech classes in the high schools and a separate center be created to serve students. To date here is no evidence through follow-up of students indicating the centers are successful.
Also, try to determine their cost. We have a model that works, update it as requested and make recommendations for improvement … I am confident the board will then vote for any innovation grant that will provide the vehicle for outstanding Work Place Learning and, or, to improve the teaching and learning model in the classroom.
Perhaps we should look at the first comprehensive technology plan that was developed for Fayette County. If it’s too old, come up with a better one. That plan included a proposal for the development of centers of innovation in each of our high schools. Would that not be better than implying that innovation takes place only in sites removed from the schools?
Finally, anyone viewing the no vote on the proposal as a vote of no confidence in the superintendent shows an alarming lack of understanding of the role of the board. The no vote was for the quality of the proposal, nothing more nothing less.
The board has the responsibility to approve or not approve recommendations, and it abandons its responsibility when it becomes a rubber stamp for any proposal submitted.
Bob Todd
Post 4, Fayette County Board of Education
Fayetteville, Ga.
