A Chronicle of Higher Education article on emptying small towns in the Midwest sounds awfully familiar (may be behind a paywall):
Our year and a half spent interviewing the more than 200 young people who had attended the town’s high school in the late 1980s and early 1990s led us to categorize our young Iowans according to the defining traits of where their lives had taken them by their 20s and 30s. The largest group, approximately 40 percent, consisted of the working-class “stayers,” struggling in the region’s dying agro-industrial economy; about one in five became the collegebound “achievers,” who often left for good; just 10 percent included the “seekers” who join the military to see what the world beyond offers; and the rest were the “returners,” who eventually circled back to their hometowns, only a small number of whom were professionals we call “high fliers.” What surprised us most was that adults in the community were playing a pivotal part in the town’s decline by pushing the best and brightest young people to leave, and by underinvesting in those who chose to stay, even though it was the latter that were the towns’ best chance for a future…
Small towns need to equalize their investments across different groups of young people. While it would be impractical, and downright wrong, to abort students’ ambitions, there must be a radical rethinking of the goals of high-school education. The single-minded focus on pushing the most motivated students into four-year colleges must be balanced by efforts to match young people not headed for bachelor’s degrees with training, vocational, and assorted associate-degree programs. Those programs fill the needs of a postindustrial economy but acknowledge that not every student wants to, or will, pursue a more traditional college path.
So, what kind of education are we “Saying Yes” to here exactly?