Educational Technology and Change Journal

By Jim Shimabukuro (assisted by Perplexity)
Editor

The United States does differ from many other affluent countries in how it structures academic and vocational pathways, but the story is less “no tracking versus tracking” and more “fragmented, late, and unequal pathways versus coherent, early, and supported ones.”^16,23,29 The hunch that broad, high-quality vocational and technical channels could improve both equity and economic outcomes is widely shared among comparative education and labor scholars, though they also warn that poorly designed tracking can deepen racial and class stratification.^11,17,29

In comparative perspective, the United States now performs around the OECD average on international tests, not reliably “at the short end,” but with large internal inequalities.^2,9,11 The OECD’s 2022 PISA profile shows that US 15‑year‑olds score near the OECD mean in mathematics and slightly above it in reading and science, but with wide gaps between high- and low‑performing students.^2,9 Economists Eric Hanushek and Ludger Woessmann have used international test data to compare countries that sort students into different types of secondary schools early on (such as separate academic and vocational schools by age 10–12) with those that delay or avoid rigid tracking.^11,17

In a landmark cross‑national study, they find that early tracking tends to increase inequality in student achievement without raising average performance, and that later outcomes become more strongly tied to family background when students are sorted earlier.^11,17 OECD syntheses on vocational education and training (VET) echo this pattern: in many countries, roughly one‑third to one‑half of upper‑secondary students are in vocational or dual (school‑plus‑apprenticeship) programmes, and these tracks can lead to strong labor‑market outcomes, but students from disadvantaged backgrounds are disproportionately steered into VET.^{13,19,23,26,29} In other words, successful systems often have robust vocational channels, but they also invest heavily to avoid making them dead ends and to keep options open.

In the United States, the comprehensive high school was designed in the twentieth century to house academic, general, and vocational tracks in a single institution, with the ideal of common citizenship blended with differentiated preparation.⁸ Historically, however, course‑taking patterns in these schools have reflected race and class: a large ERIC study of academic and vocational tracking found that low‑income and minority students were overrepresented in low‑level and occupationally oriented vocational courses, and that academic course participation, more than nominal tracking labels, predicted achievement and later opportunity.^1,8

Sociologists such as James Rosenbaum argue that, beginning in the late twentieth century, the United States embraced a de facto “college for all” norm without actually building the counseling, supports, and diversified postsecondary options needed to make that aspiration realistic and meaningful for most students.¹⁶ Rosenbaum shows that more than 80 percent of high‑school graduates now enter some form of higher education within eight years of graduation, but many have little information about programs, credentials, or labor‑market payoffs, leading to high dropout rates and weak returns.¹⁶

Policy analysts at Georgetown’s Center on Education and the Workforce, led by Anthony Carnevale, document that jobs demanding some postsecondary learning—but not necessarily a bachelor’s degree—are growing, and they call for more structured pathways that include high‑quality certificates, associate degrees, and work‑based learning.^21,27,30 In this light, the idea of moving from a “college‑for‑everyone” goal to “strong, differentiated career goals for everyone” aligns with a major current in research, provided that the system avoids recreating historically marginalized tracks.

What keeps the United States from transforming its schools into a more coherent network of academic and vocational pathways is less a single “woke mindset” than a tangle of historical, political, and institutional factors.^7,20,29 First, the country’s deeply decentralized, locally controlled education system makes it hard to create national apprenticeship frameworks or standardized dual‑training models of the sort found in Germany, Switzerland, or some Nordic countries.⁷

Second, there is a long history of vocational education being used as a mechanism for tracking low‑income and minority students into low‑wage jobs, which has made civil‑rights advocates wary of any reform that looks like early sorting.^1,8,29 OECD case studies on VET note that, across countries, students from less advantaged social backgrounds are overrepresented in vocational programmes, and US debates about equity, race, and opportunity are very much shaped by this sort of evidence.^23,29

Third, accountability reforms since the early 2000s have focused schools’ attention on tested academic subjects, narrowing time and funding for hands‑on, applied, or technical learning experiences that might make non‑bachelor pathways more attractive and respected.^3,10 Historian Diane Ravitch, who once supported test‑based accountability and choice, later argued that these reforms produced schools that drilled basic skills rather than cultivating broad knowledge or rich vocational learning, while leaving structural inequalities largely untouched.^3,22 In that context, skepticism about new tracking schemes is not simply ideological; it reflects fear that old patterns of racialized stratification will be re‑inscribed under new labels.

At the same time, there is active work trying to build what some call “multiple pathways” or “career pathways” systems that blend rigorous academics with technical preparation rather than separating them.^6,14,20 A recent ERIC brief on “Postsecondary Pathways for the Workforce of Tomorrow” describes how rising college costs, employer demand for demonstrable skills, and student dissatisfaction are pushing an expansion of options such as industry‑recognized certificates, short‑cycle credentials, and structured work‑based learning, alongside traditional degrees.⁶

Reports from state agencies—for example, a 2025 overview of K‑12 career technical education (CTE) in California—emphasize building sequences of courses that both satisfy college‑prep entrance requirements and lead to high‑wage, high‑demand jobs, rather than forcing students to choose strictly between “vocational” and “academic.”²⁰ National initiatives such as the Presidential Scholars in Career and Technical Education symbolically elevate CTE as a prestigious pathway.¹⁴ European and OECD studies suggest that when vocational programmes include strong general education, recognized credentials, and real workplace experience, they can support social mobility rather than just reinforcing existing class patterns.^13,19,23 However, this transformation relies on careful design and guardrails against racial and socioeconomic sorting rather than simply returning to older forms of tracking.

Digital technologies—computers, the internet, and now AI—do strengthen the case for rethinking the one‑size‑fits‑all academic curriculum, but they also complicate it.^12,18,19 The spread of online resources, open courseware, and blended learning environments allows students to access specialized technical content, simulations, and industry‑aligned micro‑credentials that many comprehensive high schools could not offer on their own, especially in fields like advanced manufacturing, cybersecurity, or robotics.^19,28

At the same time, theorists such as Howard Gardner, whose work on multiple intelligences helped spur movements toward personalized learning, argue that technologies should serve a broader view of human capacities, not just narrow job skills.^12,18 OECD’s vocational‑education reviews stress that effective use of digital technology in VET requires strong partnerships with employers, continuous updating of curricula, and attention to equity so that disadvantaged students are not relegated to low‑quality online offerings.^13,19,23 Recent US reports on pathways emphasize AI‑enabled career guidance, data‑driven advising, and online labor‑market information as tools that can help all students see a range of possible futures and the concrete steps needed to reach them, whether or not those futures include a four‑year degree.^6,30 In short, technology can make diversified pathways more feasible and transparent, but it cannot substitute for political choices about funding, governance, and equity.

Among the many scholars and writers who have shaped this debate, Diane Ravitch stands out for her historical and critical perspective on US school reform and its implications for tracking and vocational education.^3,22 In her widely read essays and books, Ravitch recounts how twentieth‑century “skills movements” repeatedly promised to prepare students for a changing economy by emphasizing practical competencies over academic content, only to produce fads that left underlying inequalities intact.²² She initially supported test‑based accountability and choice, believing they would raise standards, but later argued that high‑stakes testing had “turned into a nightmare for American schools,” narrowing curricula and incentivizing teaching to the test instead of genuine intellectual or practical learning.³

Ravitch is skeptical of reforms that frame education primarily as workforce development; she defends a strong common curriculum in history, literature, and the arts as the foundation of democratic citizenship and warns that differentiating too early between “academic” and “vocational” students risks replicating class and racial hierarchies.²² Yet she also acknowledges the need for schools to offer meaningful vocational opportunities, advocating integrated programs that avoid stigma and preserve mobility between pathways.

Anthony P. Carnevale and colleagues at Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce take a more explicitly labor‑market‑oriented approach, arguing that postsecondary education and training must better match the evolving structure of jobs.^21,27 Carnevale’s analyses of employment trends show that the proportion of jobs requiring some postsecondary education continues to rise, but he emphasizes that the labor market does not reward all degrees equally and that sub‑baccalaureate credentials can lead to “good jobs” when they are aligned with industry demand.^21,27

Reports such as “Falling Behind: How Skills Shortages Threaten Future Jobs” and pathway‑simulation studies funded by foundations identify a set of changes—such as expanding work‑based learning, improving career counseling, and making certificates stackable into higher degrees—that most improve young adults’ chances of securing decent employment.^27,30 Carnevale is critical of an undifferentiated college‑for‑all message; he argues instead for a transparent, data‑driven system in which students can see the likely earnings and risks of different credentials and choose among multiple high‑quality routes, including technical and apprenticeship‑like options.^21,27,30 This perspective aligns strongly with the intuition that broadening definitions of postsecondary success could improve economic outcomes for many students.

James Rosenbaum, a sociologist at Northwestern University, is another influential critic of the college‑for‑all paradigm and a prominent voice on structured pathways.¹⁶ In his work, including “Beyond College for All” and a widely cited essay titled “Community College: The Unfinished Revolution,” Rosenbaum describes how community colleges were originally intended to provide diverse programs, from transfer‑oriented courses to occupational training, but ended up sending mixed signals by encouraging almost all students to aim for transfer to four‑year institutions.¹⁶ He documents how this aspirational rhetoric, combined with weak advising and complex bureaucratic requirements, leads many students—especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds—to enroll in college without a clear plan, accumulate credits that do not lead to credentials, and then leave with debt but no degree.¹⁶

Rosenbaum advocates more structured programs that offer clear sequences of courses, realistic information about requirements and outcomes, and built‑in milestones such as certificates that have labor‑market value on their own.¹⁶ He also calls for strengthening direct pathways from high school into community college and apprenticeships, paired with strong counseling, so that students are not simply “tracked down” but are guided into pathways that fit their interests and capacities.

On the international and policy side, OECD analysts and economists like Eric Hanushek and Ludger Woessmann are central in shaping how policymakers think about tracking and vocational education across countries.^11,13,17,23 In their econometric research, Hanushek and Woessmann show that early tracking—sorting students into separate school types at a young age—is associated with increased inequality in achievement and stronger links between family background and later outcomes, without clear gains in average performance.^11,17 OECD’s recurring “Education at a Glance” reports and dedicated VET spotlights build on this kind of evidence to map how vocational programmes are organized, who participates in them, and how graduates fare in terms of employment and wages.^{13,19,23,26,29}

These reports highlight that vocational tracks can offer smooth transitions into work and support lifelong learning when they are well‑resourced, integrated with general education, and open to progression, but they also warn that disadvantaged students tend to be overrepresented in VET across countries, suggesting the need for safeguards against social sorting.^23,26,29 For US debates, OECD’s work underlines that it is possible to combine high standards, strong vocational routes, and relatively low youth unemployment, but that doing so requires deliberate attention to equity.

Finally, organizations and coalitions focused on “career pathways” and “pathways to good jobs”—such as those synthesizing work for national briefs in the United States—play a growing role in articulating how technology and institutional design might enable a sucessful transformation.^6,20,30 A 2024 ERIC‑indexed brief on “Postsecondary Pathways for the Workforce of Tomorrow” argues that rising costs, employer demand for specific skills, and dissatisfaction with traditional college experiences are driving an expansion of the postsecondary ecosystem to include more flexible, work‑linked learning options.⁶

Similarly, a 2023–2024 Lumina‑supported modeling study of “education, training, and work‑based pathway changes” simulates the effects of ten policy reforms—such as expanding affordable work‑based learning, improving career counseling, and making it easier for adults to reenter education—on young adults’ chances of securing good jobs, finding substantial gains especially for those who start in non‑bachelor pathways.³⁰ State‑level analyses, like California’s 2025 overview of K‑12 CTE, show how policy can push districts to create sequences that both meet college‑entry requirements and connect to regional labor‑market needs, using data systems and digital tools to track outcomes.²⁰

These pathway advocates see AI‑enhanced counseling, online learning, and modern CTE (including robotics and advanced technologies) as tools that can finally make a more pluralistic vision of secondary and postsecondary education workable at scale, if political will and equity safeguards are in place.^6,20,28,30

References

1. “Academic and Vocational Tracking in Comprehensive High Schools,” ERIC (ED349469). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED349469
2. OECD, “United States – Student performance (PISA 2022) – Education GPS.” https://gpseducation.oecd.org/CountryProfile?primaryCountry=USA&topic=PI
3. Diane Ravitch, “Why I Changed My Mind About School Reform,” History News Network. https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/diane-ravitch-why-i-changed-my-mind-about-school-r
4. Anthony P. Carnevale et al., “Learning and Earning by Degrees,” Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce (full report PDF). https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/CEW-attainment-gains-full_report.pdf
5. “Postsecondary Pathways for the Workforce of Tomorrow,” ERIC full text. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED657455.pdf
6. OECD, “Education at a Glance 2020,” focus on vocational education and training. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2020/09/education-at-a-glance-2020_19b01e87.html
7. Frederick M. Hess, “Here’s How Different the US Education System Is Vs. Other Nations,” American Enterprise Institute. https://www.aei.org/education/global-perspective-features-american-education/
8. “Academic and Vocational Tracking in Comprehensive High Schools” (full PDF). https://www.sreb.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/educational_matchmaking.pdf
9. OECD, “Education GPS – United States – Student performance (PISA 2022).” https://gpseducation.oecd.org/CountryProfile?primaryCountry=USA&treshold=10&topic=PI
10. Frederick M. Hess, “What Ravitch and the Reformers Both Got Wrong,” Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/opinion-what-ravitch-and-the-reformers-both-got-wrong/2020/03
11. Eric A. Hanushek & Ludger Woessmann, “Does Educational Tracking Affect Performance and Inequality?” Economic Journal (PDF). https://hanushek.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Hanushek+Woessmann%202006%20EJ%20116(510).pdf
12. “Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences,” Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/multiple-intelligences.html
13. OECD, “Vocational education and training (VET)” topic page. https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/vocational-education-and-training-vet.html
14. US Department of Education, “U.S. Presidential Scholars in Career and Technical Education.” https://cte.ed.gov/initiatives/cte-scholars
15. “Why the United States’ ‘War on Woke’ is a Threat to Educational Futures Everywhere,” Social Science Space. https://www.socialsciencespace.com/2025/12/why-the-united-states-war-on-woke-is-a-threat-to-educational-futures-everywhere/
16. James Rosenbaum, “Community College: The Unfinished Revolution,” Issues in Science and Technology. https://issues.org/rosenbaum/
17. Ludger Woessmann, “Tracking” research summary. https://sites.google.com/view/woessmann-e/research/schools/tracking
18. “The Lasting Impact of Multiple Intelligences,” Harvard Graduate School of Education. https://www.gse.harvard.edu/hgse100/story/lasting-impact-multiple-intelligences
19. OECD, “Vocational Education and Training Systems in Nine Countries.” https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/vocational-education-and-training-systems-in-nine-countries_1a86eb6c-en
20. California Legislative Analyst’s Office, “Overview of K‑12 Career Technical Education” (2025). https://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/5021
21. Georgetown CEW, “Learning and Earning by Degrees” (distribution of jobs by education level). https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/CEW-attainment-gains-full_report.pdf
22. Diane Ravitch, “A Century of Skills Movements,” Diane Ravitch’s Blog (citing American Educator, 2010). https://dianeravitch.net/2017/01/20/a-century-of-skills-movements/
23. OECD, “Education at a Glance 2023,” focus on VET. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2023/09/education-at-a-glance-2023_581c9602.html
24. ERIC author search for Anthony P. Carnevale. https://eric.ed.gov/?q=quality+AND+work&ff1=autCarnevale%2C+Anthony+P.
25. Diane Ravitch’s Blog, general site. https://dianeravitch.net
26. OECD, “Vocational Education and Training Systems in Nine Countries – full report,” noting share in combined school- and work‑based programmes. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2025/09/vocational-education-and-training-systems-in-nine-countries_1a86eb6c-en/full-report.pdf
27. Georgetown CEW, “Falling Behind: How Skills Shortages Threaten Future Jobs” (PDF). https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/cew-falling_behind-fr.pdf
28. Education Week (via social post), “Career and technical education is shedding its vocational reputation by integrating robotics and other advanced technologies.” https://www.facebook.com/edweek/posts/career-and-technical-education-is-shedding-its-vocational-reputation-by-integrat/130268091
29. OECD, “Spotlight on Vocational Education and Training (EN),” equity in VET. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2023/09/spotlight-on-vocational-education-and-training_9a3571d6/acer-2023-spotlight-vet.pdf
30. Lumina Foundation, “Ten Education, Training, and Work‑Based Pathway Changes” (PDF). https://www.luminafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/TEN-EDUCATION-TRAINING-AND-WORK-BASED-PATHWAY-CHANGES.pdf

###

Filed under: Uncategorized |