[EDEQUITY Discussion]Non-Traditional Training and Employment

From: Barbara J Tavares (btavares@hawaii.edu)
Date: Wed Aug 09 2000 - 09:59:52 EDT

I think I understand where Christina Perez is coming from when she
laments that importance given to the wage potential of an occupation
rather than the issues of talent, social justice, and authentic
choices. I wish it were that way, too.

But income is what determines where we live, how safe we are, what level
of medical care we can access, the amount and quality of our childrens
schooling, our retirement options, and many other seemingly non-material
life elements. While the discussion on NT occupations sounds like it is
only about money, it is about having the resources to gain what you value.

I also want to comment on the posting of my colleague, Susan McKevitt,
regarding Congress attacking affirmative action with the removal of the
equity set-aside in Perkins III. While many members of Congress were
willing to do this, they had more than ample support and encouragement
from many segments of the career and technical education community. If
national groups such as AVA had loudly protested; if school administrator
groups, state vocational organizations, and unions had spoken up, we would
not have seen the demise of the equity language. Using the excuse of
flexibility, there was an army of encouragement to remove funding and
language that supported equity in voc ed. We have a lot of work to do
within our organizational affiliations and at local levels to turn back
this tide.

Barbara Tavares
University of Hawaii

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Apr 12 2002 - 15:15:47 EDT