Abstract
This chapter examines the governance of secondary vocational education and training (VET) in the United States, with comparative reference to the German model. It contrasts the decentralization of American VET with the centralization of Germany’s dual system. In the United States, states and localities are responsible for the conduct of vocational education, and VET programs vary accordingly. Over the years, the federal government has tried, with some success, to set the overall direction and define the agenda for vocational education. However, progress has been slow, as state and local VET programs have endeavored to adapt federal VET initiatives to their own agendas. The closer one gets to the operational details and actual conduct of VET in schools, the further one gets from the vision and guidance of federal policy. This diffusion of federal education programs has made it difficult for the government to implement reforms. Difficult is not the same as impossible, though. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has demonstrated that through a combination of political will and sanctions, the federal government can implement large-scale change in local schools. Whether such an approach would be feasible or desirable for VET is open to debate.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
While governance of VET in Germany is more centralized than in the United States, it is less centralized than in Denmark and Switzerland, largely because of the role of the German states (Länder) in providing school-based vocational education (Rauner, Wittig, & Deitmer, 2010).
- 2.
For a good description and analysis of the dual system in English, see Tremblay and Le Bot (2003).
- 3.
Described in Section 5.3.3.
- 4.
- 5.
These exceptions are often the result of federal court decisions. They include constitutionally protected civil rights—as in school desegregation decisions—and civil liberties.
- 6.
In 1937, the Supreme Court, in Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, ruled that federal financial assistance with conditions does not invade state sovereignty, because the state has the option to accept or reject it.
- 7.
NCLB was a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
- 8.
It is beyond the scope of this chapter to examine the politics that give rise to federal education laws and their execution. However, it is important to keep in mind the role of state and local education associations, teachers’ unions, associations of administrators, and public interest groups—among others—in initiating and giving shape to federal education policies and programs.
- 9.
A recent study found that 36 out of 50 state directors’ offices were located within state departments of education, seven were located with higher education boards, and seven had their own boards or were under state workforce development boards (Kister, 2001).
- 10.
See Stern, Bailey, and Merritt (1997) on the quality of academic instruction in the dual system.
- 11.
As with many generalizations about VET in the U.S., there is an exception. Many area vocational schools span grades 11–13, as does the dual system in Germany.
- 12.
There are exceptions, such as licences for airline pilots, which are approved by the Federal Aviation Administration.
- 13.
The discussion of the Linkages project is based on a report by Ruffing (n.d.).
- 14.
In the interim, the name of the organization was changed from National Association of State Directors of Vocational Education to National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium.
- 15.
The grant was reinstated in 2006.
- 16.
The act also permitted grants to go directly to local partnerships, but this approach was taken much less often.
- 17.
For example, on learning that Congress refused to reinstate STWOA funding, a representative of the Home School Legal Defense Fund said, “For nearly a decade, home schoolers have been waging war against this dangerous program. It is time to rejoice. The program’s threat of mandatory certificates of mastery has been dealt a mighty blow.” HSLDA News, June 27, 2001.
References
Barabasch, A. (2006). Risk and the school-to-work transition in East Germany and the United States. Atlanta, GA: Georgia State University, College of Education, Ph.D. Dissertation.
Boesel, D., Hudson, L., & McFarland, L. (1994). National assessment of vocational education, Vols. I–IV. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Carter, S. (2001). The intersection of training and careers: An examination of trends of vocational and professional certification and a call for future research. Tulsa, OK: Paper presented at Conference of Academy of Human Resource Development.
COMAR (n.d.). http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/comarhtml/13a/13a.04.01.01.htm
Grubb, W. N. (2002). Learning and earning in the middle, part I: National studies of pre-baccalaureate education. Economics of Education Review, 21, 299–321.
Grubb, W. N., & Stasz, C. (1993). Integrating academic and vocational education: Progress under the Carl Perkins Amendments of 1990. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education.
Hershey, A., Silverberg, M., & Haimson, J. (1999). Expanding options for students. Report to Congress on the National Evaluation of School-to-Work Implementation. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
HSLDA News. (2001, June 27). Retrieved July 16, 2008, from hslda.org/docs/news/hslda/200106270.asp
Kister, J. (2001). State leadership for career technical education. Washington, DC: National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium.
National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium. (2007). Career clusters and programs of study: State of states, June 2007. Washington, DC: Author.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Digest of education statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Commission on Secondary Vocational Education. (1985). The unfinished Agenda: The role of vocational education in high schools. Washington, DC: Author.
National Contractors. (n.d.). Retrieved July 17, 2008, from http://www.nationalcontractors.com/carpenter
Oklahoma. (n.d.). Constitution of the State of Oklahoma. Retrieved August 1, 2008, from http://oklegal.onenet.net/okcon/
Parnell, D. (1985). The neglected majority. New York: Community College Press.
Rauner, F., Wittig, W., & Deitmer, L. (2010). Plural Administration in Dual Systems in Selected European Countries. In: F. Rauner & E. Smith (Eds.), Rediscovering apprenticeship: Research findings of the International Network on Innovative Apprenticeship (INAP) (pp. 31–43). Dordrecht: Springer.
Roe, W. H., & Herrington, C. D. (n.d.). Vocational education. Education Encyclopedia. Retrieved August 8, 2008, from http://education.stateuniversity.com
Ruffing, K. (n.d.). The history of career clusters. Washington, DC: National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium.
Silverberg, M., Warner, E., & Fong, M. (2004). National assessment of vocational education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Policy and Program Studies Service.
Stasz, C., & Bodilly, S. (2004). Efforts to improve the quality of vocational education in secondary schools: Impact of federal and state policy. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.
Stern, D., Bailey, T., & Merritt, D. (1997). School-to-work insights from recent international developments. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research on Vocational Education.
Tremblay, D. G., & Le Bot, I. (2003). The German dual apprenticeship system. Analysis of its evolution and present challenges. Quebec, Canada: University of Quebec. Research Note no. 2003-4A.
University of Houston. (n.d.). Digital history: Education in the American Colonies Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=36
U.S. Census Bureau (2008). Public education finances, 2006. Washington, DC: Author. Figure 1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Boesel, D. (2012). Governing VET in the United States: Localization Versus Centralization. In: Barabasch, A., Rauner, F. (eds) Work and Education in America. Technical and Vocational Education and Training: Issues, Concerns and Prospects, vol 15. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2272-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2272-9_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2271-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2272-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)