SK> -> CB> Kids need real tools to work with when at all possible--I 
SK> presume
SK> -> CB> what you
SK> -> CB> describe was done to avoid lawsuit.
SK> 
SK> ->   I presume it was done to cut capital costs and even teacher 
SK> costs.
SK> -> The
SK> -> shop machinery is _expensive_!
SK> 
SK> Machinery, equipment and materials are not as expensive as lawsuit
SK> settlements. Carl is probably right, here.
    In all the schools I attended, I never remember even one kid getting hurt 
in shop class beyond the band-aid level (so there were no lawsuits).
    Phys-ed classes and sports teams generate far more expensive litigation: 
the spinal-cord cases from gymnastics, the football quadriplegics, etc.  
That's why school-sold student accident insurance doesn't cover football 
without a rider...but it covers shop class.
SK> ->   I don't think contractors will take grads of such programs as
SK> -> seriously
SK> -> as those of "hands-on" programs like the ones a bricklayers' 
SK> council
SK> -> and the schools run down here.  Contractors are just not willing 
SK> to
SK> -> run on-the-job training (in actually _doing_ things) on someone's
SK> -> house!
SK> 
SK> You're missing the point (as usual). High schools are NOT meant to
SK> replace trade schools. 
    Years ago, students not going to college were encouraged to go to 
"vocational" high schools that specialized in preparing them (and well) for 
some skilled trade after graduation.  
    Here, we still have enough courses for one trade (brickmasons) that a kid 
who completes the whole program offered in the local HSs is virtually assured 
to get a job laying brick.  
    You will find it hard to get contractors to take seriously trade courses 
not including lots of hands-on work when there are plenty of applicants from 
programs that do, together with lots of illegal aliens working construction 
here.
--- Simplex BBS (v1.07.00Beta [DOS])
---------------