Press: Hip, Hip, Hooray For HS Tech

30 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  moscow_minidoka on January 29 at 8:25 a.m.

  If they want the school district to train their workers for them, they should pony up the money and do it themselves.

• 

  Phaedrus on January 29 at 8:30 a.m.

  First, I believe that moscow nails the motivation of the business community, second they named it KTECH because it is an anagram for “Kill the Education Corridor in a Hurry”

• 

  Me on January 29 at 8:36 a.m.

  My taxes shouldn’t pay for any education. The business community should pay for it all since they are the ones who benefit by getting trained workers.

• 

  hmoffsuite on January 29 at 8:40 a.m.

  >>> “they are the ones who benefit by getting trained workers”

  I think the workers also benefit and when working, they benefit the local governments as well. Its not all a one way street.

• 

  dustinhurst on January 29 at 8:45 a.m.

  Such cynics, you two. Have you ever thought that men like Ron Nilson actually want to do some good? He wants to work to help provide opportunities for those who just don’t see themselves going to college. In a presentation before the Legislature earlier this week, Nilson said, in a nutshell, that not everyone needs, wants, or should go to college. I agree with him on that. It takes all kind to run a society, including production workers. What is so wrong with working together to implement and integrate programs that help kids learn skills in the early stages of education?

  BTW, Nilson said that he has repeatedly tried to provide some of his most-skilled workers to go into schools and teach, but barriers put up by schools kept them out.

  And one of you two mentioned that these businessmen just want cheap labor….Well, Nilson said that a a certified worker in his factory starts $13.75 an hour, which equates to a little over $26,000 a year. So, basically, by helping to implement programs that would allow high school graduates to also graduate with certification, Nilson is aiding the economy and helping students to help themselves.

  The median household income in America is $49,900. You’re saying Nilson is evil because he wants high school grads to make half that right out of high school? Ludicrous.

• 

  dustinhurst on January 29 at 8:47 a.m.

  Hmoffsuite makes a good point. Training and education keeps people off welfare and paying taxes. Isn’t that beneficial?

  @ Me - Would you rather be paying for education or welfare? Pick one.

• 

  nic on January 29 at 8:52 a.m.

  Ludicrous.

• 

  MamaJD on January 29 at 8:54 a.m.

  Public schools are funded through taxes like it or not. In my opinion, the school district is not prudent with our tax dollars by expanding a technical program into another district while our existing schools need help. There are 7 schools identified by the district staff that need HVAC work. (1 school has recycled air + 6 that do not have fresh air at all). There are security related issues that need to be addressed within our schools. There is abestos abatement that needs to be remedied. Classroom technology is falling behind in every school. Yet, the Board of Trustees is choosing to move forward with an idea politically popular with the business community. The District has not provided adequate opportunities for feedback from the Non-Stakeholders in our district. The District is setting aside the needs of our schools for another time because KTEC has to be now. Please let our district officials know if you believe our existing facilities should come first. 664-8241

• 

  Joker on January 29 at 9:18 a.m.

  I love the smell of intellectual elitism in the morning. The posts on here are an extension of the troubling attitudes held by many about manufacturing jobs in this country.

  It’s deeply engrained in our society that manufacturing jobs are lesser in status than white collar jobs. Moscow’s statement that the manufacturing community should pay for students training is all misguided and wrong. Many manufacturing businesses pay for their workers to receive training because their skills are woefully insufficent.

  The idea that students go to high school with the goal of going to a college is hammered into us from an early age. Our parents, grandparents repeat this mantra over and over again.

  What’s rarely talked about are the millions of dollars that are wasted annually by students who attend college for a year or two and then drop out because college isn’t for them. Often, these students will land a manufacturing job and then go back to North Idaho College for more training.

  Clearly our education system is flawed in its long term approach to students. However, we can’t place all them blame on educators because we are all to responsible. Our country has become a nation where we barely make anything, except movies and music. We’re barely making our own food.

  Our greed for cheap stuff has left our country hollow and economicly weak. I support the idea because I believe it’s time to change our attitudes about manuafacturing in this country.

• 

  Fixer on January 29 at 9:35 a.m.

  Like many, I received technical training in the military. After leaving the military, it was that training that formed the basis for my success in the private sector. I have never been to college.

  There is tremendous value in making technical training available to high school students (without them having to join the military), whether or not they choose to attend college afterward.

  Having said that, MamaJD is right. Priorites are out of order.The business community’s efforts would be better spent on the re-vitalization of the existing schools. Perhaps updating the technology curriculum in each existing school would preclude the need for KTEC in the first place.

• 

  wheels on January 29 at 9:37 a.m.

  I support advanced education in any form and I’m sure Mike Patrick will lobby for a sizeable donatiion from his boss, Duane Hagadone since he seems to have a problem with the Ed Corridor.I only hope along the way the students will learn more than the pledge of allegance to the socket wrench, whatever.

• 

  Don_Sausser on January 29 at 10:05 a.m.

  @MM: If they want the school district to train their workers for them, they should pony up the money and do it themselves.

  Way back in the dark ages when I attended jr. high we had several vocational classes including, print shop, woodshop, electrict shop, etc. My Community College provided vocational course similar to NIC.

  So what is new about using public money for vocational education?

  MamaJD, there will always be maintenance issues with existing plant. If we used your criteria there would be few progressive (get that Phaed!) educational initiatives proposed.

• 

  MamaJD on January 29 at 10:23 a.m.

  True Don. But there will not always be a willing public that will vote yes to fund those issues. To set items that are above and beyond general maintenance balloons the list of issues to what it is now — over 40 million dollars in identifiable items that still need to be addressed.

  The KTEC school has merit. Choosing to address facility needs has merit. I just don’t think now is the time to try to have everything by asking voters to approve a KTEC school when the list of needs is so large. How often will the voters say yes and to what expense of future needs in our district? Taxpayers should be treated like a valuable resource and it can’t be relied upon that they will always support a levy. Remember, if KTEC is approved, we still have the long list plus a Maintenance and Operations levy slated for next Spring that also doesn’t address the list of needs.

• 

  moscow_minidoka on January 29 at 10:37 a.m.

  Good grief - just because I don’t support KTEC doesn’t mean I don’t support vocational/technical training. There’s no “intellectual elitism” inherent in doubting these guys’ motives, either.

  I stated very clearly on a different thread recently that the emphasis on College for All is misguided and counterproductive. I am a BIG supporter of votech training, apprenticeships, and other alternatives to college, which can be personally and financially rewarding.

  What I DON’T support is the creation of this special school when all of our current school are underfunded. Although I could have improved my wording in the original comment, all I mean by “let them pay for it” is that if they are so concerned about the need for this school, they should fund it instead of soaking the taxpayers with yet another district expense.

  Or, alternatively, they should set up a fundraising effort in the community and set up a special fund that is directed to vocational/technical training in the school district in the existing facilities.

  When I was in high school (in the early 1990s), I took welding classes, ag education classes, etc my entire four years. It was a great experience, even though I changed my mind about getting into agriculture.

  As much as some of you go off about the Left Bank, you sure have knee-jerk reactions about the motives of anyone who might oppose this idea.

• 

  Joker on January 29 at 10:46 a.m.

  I am thinking educators should fund a special high school or program to dramatically improve the quality of teachers and college professors.

  The current generation of educators isn’t producing, just look at the test scores in Idaho. Maybe if the teachers were better our students would be smarter and as a result the teachers would get more pay.

• 

  Me on January 29 at 10:52 a.m.

  Sorry - I forgot to put my /sarcasm switch on my post….

• 

  moscow_minidoka on January 29 at 10:53 a.m.

  Joker, your twisted logic just caused my head to explode. Nicely done.

  After the frustrating week here, I’m beginning to think that HBO is bad for my health. It hasn’t been this ugly around here since November 2008.

• 

  Joker on January 29 at 10:58 a.m.

  @Moscow, maybe you should take break. Better yet, head up to Canada, get some awesome health care, but you might be gone a while. I hear those lines to be seen by a doctor are long, real long.

• 

  jt on January 29 at 11:07 a.m.

  If a separate, dedicated Vo-Tech facility is truly desired by the business community they should not only fund-raise to get it started but the fundraising should continue in order to provide a permanent endowment. Let it be self-sustaining.

  If you want to recognize a need and expand or change the current curriculum to meet it, please do so. I remember taking both shop - wood and metal - along with Home Ec - cooking and sewing - in middle school and beyond. I’m all for making certain these return to education in general.

  I’m certain Ron Nilson wants to “do something good” and there’s no doubt the “something good” being addressed will also benefit him. Nothing wrong with that but it makes the effort less/more than altruistic. Contributing to the Boys and Girls Club and whatnot is truly altruistic. The interest in KTEC is about leveraging private startup monies into company-beneficial long-term public funding.

  I also feel that a “market solution” could address the current “lack of qualified applicants.” I’m sorry dustinhurst but $26K annual salary for skilled welders/metalworkers is laughable. Raise that hourly wage to $25-$35 locally and people will pursue the skills development on their own. What is truly lacking is a population of “qualified applicants willing to work for the offered wage.”

• 

  Arch_Druid on January 29 at 11:13 a.m.

  Joker, Moscow Minidoka AND MamaJD have some good points. We are looking at the Idaho state legislature as well as Guv. Otter cutting various budgets statewide, inclusive of education. I wouldn’t suggest jeering at either of them. Long before a “KTEC” school would get off the ground, and long before students might enter that particular taxpayer funded vocational school, you’d still have to deal with school children who suffer from educational budget cuts. AND business interests who want a free lunch at taxpayers’ expense.

  Question, who’s the liberal(s) on the thread now? Now, how would YOU like to visit Canada and its long lines waiting for health care?

• 

  Joker on January 29 at 11:20 a.m.

  You know Arch, I wonder if you ask these businesses if they’d be wiling to pay more corporate income tax or lose some of their sales tax exemptions if the money went to a technical vocational school system in Idaho what they would say?

  I have hunch they’d turn several shades of red and scream “Hell NO.”

• 

  Smacky on January 29 at 11:23 a.m.

  Pros vs Cons re Canada Health Care: Canadians receive cost effective care for little or no cost but have to wait to obtain the care. Americans often forgo care because they aren’t able to afford the treatment. Canadians often buy up coverage to obtain treatment in the US. Americans often go to Mexico to obtain cheap, risky treatment.

  So, MM may have to wait, but at least he won’t have to file bankruptcy after he’s treated.

• 

  Joker on January 29 at 11:27 a.m.

  Course if he goes to Mexico, Mike Jorgenson might slap a fine on him for paying Hispanic health — legal or not.

• 

  Arch_Druid on January 29 at 11:29 a.m.

  Joker, glad to know that you agree that a taxpayer funded (but not by a corporate interest) KTEC school equates with a free lunch for that corporate interest. Yeah, LOL!, IF they had to pay out of their tax dollars FOR such a VoTech school, they’d drop it in a hurry! So, you just made my point.

• 

  florined on January 29 at 11:30 a.m.

  First, please keep in mind that I favor training (including mental training) for job seekers, kids wondering what they’ll do when they grow up, old folks like me who still like learning new things…everybody. Also keep in mind that I’m a staunch believer in publicly funded education.

  With that said, I have 3 concerns…that’s concerns, not necessarily objections, about KTEC:
  1. The enthusiasm of Mr. Nilson and others is admirable, but it’s easier to garner support for a one-time all-out effort. Unfortunately, after the land is acquired and the buildings built, the additional expenses to the school districts continue.
  2. I’m always concerned about “ownership.” Once KTEC is in place, who runs it? And who calls the shots about policy? At first glance, it would seem that the involved districts would be the deciders, but “ownership” isn’t easy to give up, as the recent bruhaha regarding Mr. Ketchum would illustrate.
  3. Are certified instructors available to teach these classes? Or can we look forward to a power struggle with the IEA and NEA regarding teacher certification?

• 

  Joker on January 29 at 11:41 a.m.

  A taxpayer funded option is still a good option. We’re talking about a societal shift, away from traditional education models and that can be painful.

  I think the proposal would have a lot more support if businesses agreed to invest in the future.

• 

  spokelooneh on January 29 at 2:35 p.m.

  “It takes all kind to run a society, including production workers.”
  -Dustin

  I’m trying to figure out how low skilled, semi-skilled workers are Professionals or Technicians.

  The guy or gal who operates the robot on the shop floor I wouldn’t call Professional or Technical, however the guy or gal who fixes/programs the robot would be.

• 

  Norther on January 29 at 2:47 p.m.

  The idea of a specialized school sounds rather interesting. However, I have my doubts as to whether the stigma of going to the ‘non-college bound’ school will hinder development. I am a HS drop-out (not one of my finer points). I am sure there are plenty of folks who could explain it…low socio-economic whatever, not challenged enough…but to put it plainly. I was lazy as heck and I liked to make money more than go to school. Perhaps that kind of school could have helped me. But as it is, I found other avenues to pursue education.

• 

  lovetohateme on January 30 at 11:29 a.m.

  I think it’s important to have vocational classes in high school. As Mr. Sausser mentioned, it’s nothing new, and these classes help students prepare for jobs that much of the current curriculum does not.

  Nonetheless, I’m always leery when schools ask for more taxpayer money, rather than looking at ways to budget differently for the huge amount they already get. Private families (who don’t want to spin aimlessly on the debt hamster wheel) are forced to do it on a daily basis, they have to take a finite amount, divide it across their expenses, and plan exactly where every dollar will go, and if they want to add something to their lifestyle, they need to look at ways to do that, ways that don’t necessarily require going to their boss and demanding more money. It’s not unreasonable to ask schools to do the same.

  I learned years ago in southern Idaho the extremes school districts will go to in order to present the image that they need to bleed taxpayers more. They were asking for funds to build a new, bigger high school (and close the old one), and the public in the area didn’t see any need, because the high school already in place wasn’t even close to full. The ballot measure for that levy was voted down several times, so the district redefined what high school was and moved a grade from the middle schools to the high school, then they had the stats to show the high school was indeed overflowing. The public again voted down the levy, so the district closed one of the older buildings on the high school campus, saying it was “unsafe” and barely met code. They made a big theatrical production out of buying a bunch of trailers and setting them out in the parking lot most visible from the main street, and raising a big fuss throughout the year about how the high school was so overcrowded, children were being forced to learn in ill-equipped trailers. That year they finally managed to ram their levy through, and the new high school was funded and built. They then proceeded to move the middle school children back to the middle schools, reopen the “unsafe” building (which is still in use today), keep the original high school running, and keep the trailers as well. Since then, it’s rare to find a situation where I trust a school district when it demands more money. I believe they need to learn to budget wisely, just like the rest of us.

• 

  lovetohateme on January 30 at 11:52 a.m.

  That’s not to say I’d *never* support more funding to the schools. I just want solid proof (with independent verification) that they are budgeting as well as possible with what they have and that there is a true need for additional funds beyond what they already get, and that there is no other way to get those funds.

  I’m a big fan of fundraisers for schools, and for giving students vocational training by allowing them to “apprentice” with local businesses, as opposed to having formal classes. By allowing them to apprentice for credit they’re likely to make some money themselves just from that. Then they’re learning a vocation in a real life environment and beginning to earn a living. Plus it saves the schools money.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic