Current Editor: Chris Merrill, email@example.com
Previous Editors: Mark Sanders 1989-1997; James LaPorte: 1997-2010
As an open access journal, the JTE does not charge fees for authors to publish or readers to access.
FROM THE EDITOR As I ponder the current trends in voca- tional and science education, I become schizophrenic.... I'm not sure whether to be overwhelmed with optimism, or distraught with paranoia. It seems that in both camps, peo- ple are talking about us without necessarily calling our name. Just as industrial arts education was forever changed by federal legislation in the 1970s, the Carl D. Perkins Act of 1990 prom- ises to do the same for technology education. While it is impossible to project exactly HOW the Act will impact our profession, you can bet it won't be "business as usual" in the coming decade. Among other initiatives, the Perkins Act seeks to encourage the integration of aca- demic and vocational content. This would seem to bode well for technology education, since we have been working for more than a century to establish an optimal mix of the cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains of learning. To the uninitiated, technology education may even appear to BE the inte- gration of academic and vocational curricula. In many technology education labs, it still takes more than a sidelong glance to appreci- ate the differing philosophies that underlie technology and vocational education. Yet, there is no clear mandate in the Act for technology education to assume a primary leadership role in this regard. As the vocational and academic sectors grope to develop integration models, I would hope we in technology education would (finally) be recognized for our excellence in this arena. There is, of course, the danger of being subsumed in the process. At the same time, the science education community is working around the clock to make their curricula more relevant, a task which has logically led them to consider "technology-based" activities. It is becom- ing increasingly difficult to differentiate between science and technology education content/methodology. The "Principles of Technology" course is a good case in point. Is it a science course or a technology course? Both, I guess, since it is being taught by both science and technology teach- ers. The activities described in progressive science textbooks mirror those found in pro- gressive technology textbooks. At the risk of sounding repetitious, I would hope we in technology education would be recognized for our excellence in THIS arena as well. At times, I think we ARE beginning to be recognized for our strengths in these areas. The recent reorganization of my State Depart- ment of Education has resulted in a new ad- ministrative position for technology education that appears to carry more clout than it used to. This was, however, an indi- rect result of more than two decades of strong state leadership in technology educa- tion in Virginia. And, it does not com- pletely negate the net loss of technology education administrative positions resulting from the reorganization. So what is to be made of the current trends in vocational and science education? Well, as usual, we have a lot of work to do to make others aware of the enormous contrib- utions we have been making in education. As I read the reports on science and vocational education, I can't help but think we haven't given ourselves enough credit. They want technology-based activities... we've got 'em. They want an integration of academic and vo- cational content... check us out. We remain our own worst critics. It is time to get ourselves onto the ballot and let the public decide. Permission is given to copy any article or graphic provided credit is given and the copies are not intended for sale. Journal of Technology Education Volume 2, Number 2 Spring 1991