Hyslop-Margison (2001). Assessment of Historical Arguments in Vocational Education Reform.

Hyslop-Margison, E. J. (2001). An Assessment of the Historical Arguments in Vocational Education Reform. Retrieved April 3, 2008, from here.

“… current debates on the future of public schooling are increasingly framed within the discourse of occupational relevance, globalization, and international market competition.”

Author states that the intent of the paper is to propose an:

“… approach to vocational education that promotes democratic ideals …”

“… meet the labor force needs consistent with the shift from an agrarian to an industrial economic base.” (from Wirth 1972)

Mention of social efficiency proponent Prosser, student of Snedden.

“Snedden advocated a vocational training model that responded directly to the specific labor force needs identified by industry.” (per Drost 1967)

Social efficiency posits that “… class structure is an inevitable fact of life …” and “… Social Darwinian assumption that inherently disparate individual characteristics invariably produce an economically-stratified society.”

Remarking on Dewey:

“… warning it would validate class stratification by accepting an educational philosophy of social predestination …”

“… students were active pursuers and constructors of knowledge …”

Vocational education should “… help students develop a greater range of personal capacities that expanded, rather than limited, their future occupational options …” and otherwise “… can be employed as a means for social control by naturalizing dominant values, attitudes, and entire world views to students.”

Under heading “Education for Social Efficiency vs. Education for Democracy”

Snedden: “… to meet existing labor force demands, enhance national competitiveness, and promote economic progress.”

Dewey: “… vocational education should be designed to meet student needs rather than corporate demands and prepare learners for the various challenges of social life instead of specific occupational roles.”

Vocational education as an “enabling force.”

Snedden and Prosser: “… adjusting individual workers to their appropriate places in the division of labor …” (per Kantor 1986).

“… the major threat to the maintenance and development of democratic social systems comes from failure to ensure an adherence to these [democratic] principles in every area of social living and not merely in the election of government.” (per Kelly 1995)

“… social structure of opportunity …” (per Kantor 1986)

“”… moral responsibility of education in a democratic society …”

See this page at https://kinasevych.ca/index.php

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Please disable your adblocker or whitelist this site!