Over the past few decades the United States education system has been in a slow state of decline among modern countries. From being one of the leading countries in subjects such as math and science we now rank below most currently well developed countries in these categories annually (statistics from Pearson Index Rankings). The first question commonly asked is how did we get there, and the next is how do we fix this?

We need to regain interest back into our education system. To regain interest, we need a system that can cater to students pursing higher education, while also providing common skill training and local job opportunity. Therefore, it would be in the best interest of the United States to adapt our current educational system to a modified vocational style education. A system that is meant to provide basic education, while also giving apprenticeship style learning opportunity's, or advanced education for higher learning. 

To put this system into perspective many countries leading in education use this system. Countries such as Germany, or the Netherlands would be a prime example. A basic understanding of this system is given in the video "German Education System (Super Simplified". To briefly explain this system though; There are three paths students will follow after their first few years of school. The next three schools specialize in a certain task. This being to prepare the students for higher learning, apprenticeships, or more skilled work. Students are placed in which school based off of test and grades. They are able to switch during based off of performance. The goal for the new system would be to combine this job training and secondary school prep in one setting so as to provide more options for students.

When American education first began it was founded on simple principles of providing a basic education for students in a world that was not very high tech, or white collared. However, the world has changed and as such that became an obsolete system that didn't work, so the system needed to adapt. The major way that was determined was to improve test scores. This comes from Diane Ravitch's work where she writes "The United States has embarked on a crusade to reform education. Voices on the Left and the Right agree that it is imperative to improve student test scores. To this end, accountability, choice, and market-based solutions have been touted as panaceas for improving America's educational system." (The Death and Life of the Great American School System pg. 1). This doesn't actually do anything to educate, but just more follows a "fake it, till you make it" kind of concept.

Education should to paraphrase Mrs. Ravitch "Teach our students to read, write and be mathematically literate, but also install character and civic responsibility, and excite our students to learn." (The Death and Life of the Great American School System pg. 2).  So how do we do we get students invested into learning? Consider our system is geared to getting students from secondary school to higher learning. Many students in our system don't pursue higher education for a multitude of reasons. Such as coming from a poor background, or not having the educational aptitude needed to pass. So this causes a lack of interest of care of those who go through a secondary school.

Adjusting to this type of system would have three real advantages that would get students interested again, and boost our education standings. These would be providing job training to students interested in going straight into the workforce. Still provide advanced education for students seeking higher education post-secondary schooling. Reduce the amount of current dropout rate by giving students invested interest in a system that caters more to their needs, rather than just "passing" them.

Addressing one of the first concerns about this system would be the past of vocational education. The system was not originally meant to get students prepared for any high learning. This is pointed out by Emily Hanford in her article stating "the law that first authorized federal funding for vocational education in American schools, explicitly described vocational ed as preparation for careers not requiring a bachelor's degree." (The troubled history of Vocational education par. 9). This is expanded upon further as she also points out "vocational education was designed to teach kids the specific skills of one job or career." (par 17.). Now this is a major issue, but many jobs now that are offered in a vocational education system require a bachelor's degree, or certification training. This is a change from very low maintenance skilled jobs that didn't require any training after secondary school. 

Bringing up one of our first points let us use an example. Let's say a student is not interested in going to a college, but is interested in being a mechanic at his friend's business. Normally this requires that he would complete high school, and then complete another program afterword's, at a local community college, or tech school. Now with the proposed vocational system this eliminates the after secondary school area, and instead implements the ability to earn a certification during secondary school. So upon graduating with his or her high school degree is also certified to work at any mechanical shop. This would apply to other such jobs like cosmetology, welding, technician, IT, and so on.

Continuing on with this tract if a student is able to employ at a higher level such as management, business administration, or accounting types of such work. With this addition of extra career education programs, it incentives students to stay in school. This gives students a real and obvious reason to stay in school, or contingency if they do not reach a higher learning. This would get more students to graduate from high school.

Moving on though brings up our next point, and also the next counter-point.  It was just stated that Vocational education is meant for "careers not requiring a bachelor degree". So why would we adopt a system that isn't meant to prepare students for higher learning? That is because its original purpose has changed, and is now modified heavily from when it was first conceived. Most countries that use the system are evidence that they can provide high education, and job certification to meet student needs.

One of our examples of this would be in Allie Bidwell's piece on Vocational Education in that "In 2013, at least three-quarters of the school's 11th-grade students scored as proficient in reading, writing, mathematics and social studies on the state graduation test  --  higher in every category than the district average." (Vocational High Schools: Career Path or Kiss of Death? par. 18). This is makes the point that it is very much possible for this type of system to provide the quality education that would be required to reach higher education.

Another point is that adopting this system would unify educational standards across the country more than it currently is. As pointed out in our second video ("Education System - Germany vs USA." YouTube.) it is stated that many elementary and high schools are divided from public, private, or provided by churches. The new system would rely more on a set system that is followed across all states. This puts all students at a fair advantage to be able to learn.

Providing this combination of job opportunity, and education proficiency in one setting can improve many facets of our system at certain points. This particularly comes in the face of keeping students in school, and interested in learning. Along with rejuvenating students it provides extra jobs in education as people would be required to fill in as certified instructors for this new area of employment.

Now beyond the realm of education, and job certification this argument also reaches a social aspect. As this requires adjusting how we would conduct schoolings daily routines. This ranges from time for school to take place, requirements, and more. These others also involve such things as extracurricular, environment students are placed in, and government involvement in the system. Many of these things seem very common, or rooted but would need to be addressed as they are just as important in making this transition.

One of the first major differences in just an obvious eye between our two systems are extracurricular activities. In other countries these are not tied to the schools, but are clubs sponsored by the state, or a group not tied to it (such as a local place). This is backed up in Stefanie Loh's interview as she explains "In Europe, England is one of the few countries that offers sports as part of the extracurricular activities available to students in the school system." (par. 7).

Now most people would say that this is something that would not be something to worry about, but consider that many students best chance of getting to college come through this. An easy example of this are college football players, or baseball players, or soccer, or anyone who receives a chance through athletics. This has been a common part of our system is scholarships through extracurricular and is something that nobody has an answer for besides just keeping it as it is. However, we would be changing a system that would have to adapt to accommodate for extra costs, such as the job placement. This cost could cut many of these extra programs, and thus opportunities for students.

The next piece is comparing the United States and countries that often use this system, and the people that attend the schools. What I mean by this is that the United States as often described is a "melting pot" as we face many different cultures and backgrounds in our daily life. This is not the case in European countries, which while different, share many values. This is something to consider when these are the common users of this system. This is simply pointing out that every culture is different, and responds differently to how they are taught (both from a social and educational standpoint).

While most people wouldn't say this it is a very observable case or not anything to be worried about this is still something that is commonly talked about as an issue in the United States. So in case of differing situations the United States needs to have an adjustable system for this dilemma, as European countries do not face this and do not need to adjust for any possible problem. Again as most would say that this is not a big deal it is something that is observable and needs to be taken into account.

The final impact is government involvement in each system. Now both governments while involved are very different in how they are in their own way. The major difference between the two is standardized testing and its effects on the schools that are tested.

With the United States and its legislation its schools funding is a direct result of its testing. This is a result of legislation such as No Child Left Behind as indicated by Diane Ravitch. This is a major flaw as schools that don't perform to standards than lose funding, and then further cause the problem to expand. Whereas in contrast most other countries use a formula to determine what is best for each school, and equal to each other.

This major difference in funding is something that needs to be changed. Simply as the goal would be to make sure every school would be able to provide an equal education, and job opportunity. Also they would need to be kept in a nice working order, up to date with latest tools, and in a clean environment for students to learn in. This is something that currently still needs to be worked on in the current system that the United States uses.

The current educational system in the United States has been faltering in the past few years. The usual answer for the situation has been to respond by administering test, and pushing students to pass these test. Which then leads to funding schools that perform well and cutting funding for schools that don't perform as well. It has lost focus on "basic" education and as previously stated more on just getting students to pass test.

A new model, and shift in focus is needed to bring about any real change in our standing in the world. To do this we need to change up a system that hasn't been working for quite a while. Whenever a country, person, or organization is looking for a new way to do something, it takes what is working from another source and improves upon it. In this case almost all of the top countries in education use some form of vocational education, and it is proving to be very effective for them.

This system is by no means a brand new system that has never been used before. It has proven to be effective before for a previous generation, and current generations. It is currently as said before, used for countries leading in categories such as math, and science, where we as a nation are lacking. This is something that we can very easily observe from other countries and altered to fit our mold and form a new curriculum. One that would be the best of both worlds.

While it is shown that we still have some issues that need to be tackled and dealt with. None of them are beyond being a herculean task. Not to mention many big issues dealing with changing the system already would be better than the current system now. So if we are serious in trying to fix what has become a year round issue, then it's time to really change up our strategy and try something different.

