In 2010 I wrote an “Op Ed” that examined the objective reality of having a President who was the product of several generations of affirmative action in education. The bottom line of the Op Ed was that our President was probably not as capable as he [and we] had been led to believe.

Frankly, I was expecting a ration of criticism about the article, especially from liberal commentators, but it never came, and I suspect it was because there was little to disagree with in the thesis: That affirmative action in education was a failed social experiment of the 60’s and 70’s.

But there is another category of preferential admissions to private [and some public] schools and colleges that produces graduates of questionable quality, and who may also think they are more qualified than they really are.

Children of wealthy and influential families get into private schools and colleges just as arbitrarily as do those admitted because of affirmative action - these are called “legacy” admissions. The irony is that our President just before Obama, George W. Bush [and his father, George H.W. Bush] both attended Yale University because of who they were and because of the wealth and influence of their famous families [H.W.’s Senator father attended Yale as well].

And, the Bushes are a good example of the arbitrary nature – and results - of preferential “legacy” admissions: While H.W. is generally considered by political historians/experts as a very thoughtful guy, “W” is not. In fact, comparing Obama to “W” is made more objective because both were the products of a preferential admission treatment: Obama by virtue of race and/or ethnicity and Bush because of his family wealth and political influence.

One might also conclude that affirmative action is “justified” because it works to “offset” the arbitrary results of legacy admissions. While that’s perhaps a rational conclusion, we would probably be better off without either; however, the reality is that both practices - whether desirable or not - are “facts of life” in the American “education system”.

Which brings me to the main point of this article: That our country desperately needs a new way to look at our “education system”, particularly our system of public education, beginning at the 9^th or 10^th grade level. At that point, there should be an available choice for students – and a whole spectrum of options – to pursue a vocational program and “learn a trade” that is (1) contemporary (2) in demand, and (3) productive to society. Some current examples are:

· Information technology and electronics

· Health related skills

· Auto and transportation mechanics

· Welding and metal fabrication

· Woodworking and cabinetry

· Construction skills and design

· Heating and Air Conditioning

· Plumbing

· Electrician

· Business support skills

· Cosmetology

· Military and law enforcement

· Aviation

· Maritime

· Oil, gas and nuclear power trades

· Environmental studies and skills

My thesis is not new: My late father, Dr. Ralph O. Gallington, began his life-long advocacy for vocational education in the 1930’s with his first teaching job at Kenwood High School in Baltimore MD. Over a long and distinguished career in industry and academia that followed, my Dad published hundreds of articles and several books on the subject. And, his books on vocational course organizational approaches are still in use worldwide.

Not every kid needs, wants or should go to college, and while we must also address the societal inequities of the ones who should – but can’t afford to go, we need worthwhile options for everyone who doesn’t want to go on to college after High School. Most European countries have long and well-developed “vocational tracks” for students, some beginning as early as age 11 or 12. While these programs might be too aggressive for the United States, they do offer valuable longer-term examples for study and analysis.

Now, who could possibly object to doing a comprehensive study of reworking our public schools to provide for serious vocational options for our children who don’t want to go to college and pursue traditional academic degrees?

Just about everyone connected with traditional education, and certainly the public school teacher unions would oppose the idea. Also, one could expect politicians to argue that “everyone should go to college” – a trite expression that might get votes, but rings hollow with today’s economic realities and shortage of technically trained people. State and local boards of education would also oppose broad based vocational education, as would most federal authorities and bureaucrats. In fact, most every agency with any equity in the status quo - even with its high drop out and failure rates - would probably oppose comprehensive public school vocational programs.

Is there a demand for vocational training? Just watch local TV channels anywhere, especially daytime: Every other ad is for private [and costly] vocational schools and training program – many of doubtful quality and boastful of questionable results. Many of these “schools” are clearly in the “fly by night” category and could/should be replaced by well designed and financed public school vocational choices for the students who want and/or need them.

Not everyone wants to (nor should) be “prepared” to go to college - to advocate college for everybody is far more “politically correct” than a reflection of today’s economic realities. And, when you think about it, many would have preferred that both Bush and Obama would have chosen to learn some other “trade” than politics!