Education Rhetoric — and those left out of it

            In Monday’s post, we discussed the rhetoric Nixon and Spence used on their websites. While comparing their language, we discovered a hole in their plan’s rhetoric.

What about the kids who don’t graduate or go to college? 

            Nixon’s rhetoric promotes his achievements as Governor and his plans to increase opportunities for higher education as a way or improve the economy.

“Gov. Nixon believes that in this global economy, a college education is more important than ever – and that any Missouri student who works hard and wants to attend college should have that opportunity.”

            Spence’s language relies on a relationship between education and the economy. 

“Without a doubt, job creation is my number one priority. That is why it makes perfect sense for me to push an aggressive education reform agenda. Education and economic development go hand in hand.”

His policies promote “higher education” to prepare students for their part in a “21st century workforce.”

            The most interesting part of Spence’s page is the final bullet point of his education plan. He recognizes that many Missouri students find success by pursuing paths that don’t include a four- year college degree.

“Many Paths, Same Success- A four-year college degree is not the only path to a successful career. We need to assist trade schools and community colleges, as well as set up an alternative platform for the students that simply want to learn a life skill and go to work.”

This got us interested in what kind language is used to describe the education Missouri students need to get jobs.

These info graphics from Complete College America illustrate two principles.

1: Higher education is becoming a more important for a strong economy.

2:  Far too few students earn a 4-year college degree 

Here’s the gap: If so many students aren’t going to college or aren’t finishing their degree, why isn’t this the focus of education rhetoric? 

According to an August 2011 report from the Missouri Economic Research and Information Center, manufacturing contributed $63 billion of direct and indirect benefits toward the 2010 Missouri gross state product and continues to play an important role in Missouri’s economy.

Where’s the rhetoric describing the plan to promote job-training skills so our graduates are prepared for the jobs available on the economy?

Which candidate is supporting programs that teach students trades that will transfer into careers?   

The problem is, parents don't’ talk about their students like their kid will be the one to drop out. They don’t expect their kid to be the one to struggle to graduate from college.

We all want our kids to go to college. And candidates want to be able to send all kids to college, and have them use their degree to build Missouri’s economy. 

But that’s not the state of reality we live in. 

            Why do we allow our candidates to use rhetoric that doesn’t reflect reality?

If we expect anything, shouldn’t we demand a realist plan for our children?

Or are those words too much to ask?