Philadelphia, and I'm certain other school districts, had a system such as the one you describe back in the pre-WWII period. "Academic" kids were going on to college, "Business" kids weren't going to either college or trade school, and "Shop" was for boys learning a trade, "Secretarial" for girls entering business, and "Home Economics" for girls intending to stay home and raise a family. It seemed to work then, but I doubt if it would work now. We live in a different time, and we also live in a different social situation than the schools you mention in Europe. Prior to the GI Bill of Rights, only the upper class kids went to college. After WWII, middle and then lower class kids also went. The need for the shop and home-ec classes was largely reduced and eventaully virtually abandoned. In our suburban Houston high schools we have "honors" classes (almost entirely white and some Asian kids), "regular" (mostly white with some black and Hispanic) and "special" (some white, mostly black and Hispanic). Contrary to correct thinking, we have merely substituted one form of segregated education for another form.

If we had trade school or shop classes today, you can be sure that the proportion of minority kids in those classes would be very high, and the proportion of white and Asiatic kids in the college prep classes would be very high. The ACLU, NAACP. LULAC, NOW, and every lawyer looking for a pay day would run wild. Just imagine the lawsuits claiming violations of civil rights, de facto segregation, discrimination, unfair practises, etc., etc. This mind-set and the resulting litigation are an unfortunate part of our society and way of life. It would matter not that the choice by the kids and/or parents would be voluntary, the lawyers would argue (and they would win a politcally correct verdict) that the system was discriminatory regardless of the choice. Of course, you could counter that this litiguous mind-set is with us anyway, and trade schools won't change that or make it any worse. You would probably be right.

The trouble with our schools is not the teachers nor the cirriculum. The problem is the kids. Good students generally come from a home where someone cares and gets involved. Poor studdents (and today that means most students) come from homes where no one cares. We battle to keep kids off drugs while in many, many homes the parents make no secret of using drugs. One of the most discouraging parts of teaching is to find that the parents of a kid addicted to drugs argue that "drugs ain't a problem for me and I have been using them for a long time".

Trade schools were a good answer for a time that is long gone. Frankly, I don't know of an answer for schools today. I am not at all certain there is an answer. Just a very poor result that seems to get worse - and pouring money into "education" doesn't have anything to do with the problem. It is social, not financial.