Ezra Klein: Reforming High School

« Hedge Funds Can Be Your Friends | Main | SCHIP and Crowd-Out »

May 14, 2007

Reforming High School

I'm no education expert, but allowing qualified 10th graders to test out of their final two years of high school and go straight to college certainly seems like a good idea. The report envisions a three-track system, in which students test out into a community college or vocational program, and only those who want to continue in high school or are seeking admission to a four-year institution would go on. You can retest at any time in the future.

It's not clear that the final two years of generalist education are terribly useful for many students, and exempting those who don't need it would save -- literally -- billions of dollars, even as funneling them towards community college and technical programs would increase their long-term earning prospects and lower their likelihood of dropping out from a curriculum that doesn't seem relevant to them. In any case, I'm not a huge fan of high school as currently composed -- which actually relates to what brings me to Chicago this week -- so more on this soon.

May 14, 2007 in Education | Permalink

Comments

I was a Resident Director for two dorms at a private liberal arts college for a while. College freshmen are just high school seniors who have been away from mommy and daddy for too long.

If I had seen high school juniors coming my way, I would have moved out of my apartment and fled the country in the middle of the night.

If high school isn't challenging them, then make it academically challenging while recognizing that kids of that age are simply not emotionally up to the task of an adult academic environment.

Posted by: Stephen | May 14, 2007 9:40:16 AM

From personal experience, the last two years of high school don't have to be necessary. I went to a private liberal arts college (Simon's Rock College, which specializes in this sort of thing) after tenth grade. I dropped out, have no diploma or GED, but I got a great education and eventually went on to graduate school at a mojor Uni.

Sure, Stephen, there's an immaturity factor with high school juniors off on their own. But I'm not sure the difference between sixteen and seventeen year old kids is all that great. Classifying all "kids of that age" as having the same level of emotional development is unfair and incorrect. It's pretty clear to me that normal college freshmen frequently aren't emotionally up to the task either. But things work out, and most colleges have pretty serious student affairs offices these days to track and support the students who need it.

Posted by: TB | May 14, 2007 10:01:03 AM

Until college is more affordable for people, I don't really see any reason to make life easier on those who already have it easy enough

Posted by: soullite | May 14, 2007 10:03:55 AM

Speaking as someone who skipped high school, I'm all in favor of this principle, but there are real difficulties in practice. I believe that very many people are uncertain what they want to do with their lives at 18 (or even at 20), but by the time you're a sophomore or perhaps a junior in college you really need to have a clear notion. Finding an answer to this question may not particularly correlate with test scores or material mastered. If, like me, you get to live at home (i.e. cheaply) and study at an excellent research university with unbelievably cheap in-state tuition (<$2000 a year at the time, but doubled or more in the next dozen years), you can take advantage of the superior opportunities in college to learn broadly and, despite having entered early, you can leave university early only if you wish to; but if you leave high school at 16 and go to pay $40K a year at a private school, you'd better figure out your life plans by age 18. So, yes: test kids out of high school early. But keep in mind that maturity is not necessarily coincident with educational attainment, and have a track set up that lets them not waste educational time stuck in high school but also doesn't penalize them for seeking more education by rushing them through to graduation.

Posted by: Warren Terra | May 14, 2007 10:08:17 AM

What vocations are we planning on training these 10th graders for? Austin Polytechnic argues that there all these excellent manufacturing jobs going wanting in Chicago, and maybe there are. But how confident are we that these solid blue collar jobs are going to be here in 50 years, when these kids are getting ready to retire? Those last 2 years of generalist education should to help people be flexible in a rapidly changing economy.

More generally, how do we feel about locking kids into working class occupations at 10th grade? Sure, sure, in the proposed system you can retest at any time in the future. But I think you risk losing what may be the best thing about America's fragmented and inefficient education system: It's wealth of second chance institutions. Make a mess of your life at 16 and drop out of high school? In the American system, it's at least possible for you to put your life together, get a GRE, and go on to college. You'd be surprised how many people actually follow that path, spending decades working their way to a BA.

Posted by: thad | May 14, 2007 10:14:34 AM

I think Stephen is on the right track, more or less. Obviously if you're talking about kids who don't expect to go to college, you're on balance talking about kids in poor-performing high schools. So, getting them out of the high school and into a voc-ed or community college program is probably a net win for them as individuals. But the Right Thing to do is figure out how to attract more quality teachers and make the high school curriculum more relevant. My pet idea in this space (which others have) is to bring back financial literacy education, but one could do other things.

Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | May 14, 2007 10:23:33 AM

Aieee!

For me, the last two years of high school were the only part that wasn't totally unbearable. Yes, the classes were a little boring, but I was starting to feel like a semi-competent young semi-adult; made some friends; figured out how to talk to girls; started getting along better with my family; and since the academic pressure had let up a little, I was more able to enjoy reading & thinking about things for their own sake and not because they were incomprehensible necessities.

If I'd gone into college at that age I would've gone totally insane.

Posted by: Hob | May 14, 2007 10:47:45 AM

Could some high school sophomores handle the academic workload? Sure, a few. Although most still have not had the experience of a full blast of (reasonably) tough work such that they have to manage not only their brain but their time as well.

Socially? Except in very rare cases, no way. Most post-sophomores are in the 15-16 range. A LOT of maturing happens between 16 and 18 for the vast majority of teens. This is the time when they have their first real significant other, their first job (another time management issue), their first real responsibilities with car, checkbook [1], ability to contact, decision about whether or not the join the Army, etc. There is a huge difference between a 16 y.o. and an 18 y.o., and even the most mature 16 y.o.s I deal with are really not ready to go off to college and manage themselves on decisions that may affect the rest of their lives.

Cranky

[1] In most states you cannot have a checking account until you can be personally named in a lawsuit, which is generally 16.

Posted by: Cranky Observer | May 14, 2007 10:49:23 AM

Is the primary purpose of school to prepare people to take their place in the economy -- that is, to prepare them for jobs -- or is it to prepare them to be thoughtful, informed, involved citizens? I vote for citizens, and a high school curriculum that reflects that. I don't want a country full of widget-makers, I want a country full of people who vote intelligently. Don't move people out of high school prematurely!

Posted by: Suburban Mom | May 14, 2007 10:52:57 AM

I'd agree with Warren and thad that there are serious practical problems to deal with, and the notion of a "three-track system" on its surface calls to mind unequal educational treatment that educators are only recently taking on.

But I have no brief for this "maturity" argument. We socialize and institutionalize children *not* to be self-reliant, responsible, mature adults because we allow them no such responsibilities. They go off to college, many fail miserably with finances, relationships, etc. because they have no experience with it, and we chalk it up to "immaturity." Yes, the current social and institutional configuration of adolescence is such that a 16 y.o. is much less mature or capable than an 18 y.o. It seems to me that one of the goals of education reform such as that proposed is to move towards an environment in which teenagers, who are capable of enormously more than is ever asked of them, can pursue and engage in activities that are worthwhile, interesting, productive, and self-directed (like college, but like a lot of other things, too).

Some people thrive in high school (and learn to become good citizens). Others are miserable. The idea of a structural realignment that allows individuals to pursue individual goals, rather than tinkering at the margins of a universal curriculum that does not serve everyone equally, seems like a great idea.

Posted by: TB | May 14, 2007 11:15:17 AM

11th and 12th grade of high school was when I really "figured everything out." I certainly wouldn't have been one of those 10th graders than managed to "test out" at the time. However, I can imagine that a lot of people would have been willing to start taking college classes right then and there.

But in theory it's a good idea. At many community colleges, there is a lot more breadth of classes available than in high school. Why not give people access to those classes as soon as they can?

is it to prepare them to be thoughtful, informed, involved citizens?

Can we give them the tools to be thoughtful, informed citizens by the time they turn 16? I think we can. Some people might want to move out of high school early. When I was in high school, the only people who were able to do that were the extremely brilliant (who got admitted to Harvard and Yale after their junior years) or extremely disenchanted (who spent her senior year at the local community college and applied to 4-year colleges from there).

I knew a couple of people who had started at a traditional college at 16. On one hand, I was really jealous of them and the opportunities they had. I would have expected them, being brilliant enough to start college so soon, that they would have been among the elite in the class. It turned out that only 1 person I knew did really impressively. About 2 did average, and the others (2 I can think of) burned out.

Posted by: Constantine | May 14, 2007 11:15:53 AM

This is a terrible idea. It's college we should be eliminating, not the final two years of high school. The idea that only those headed for higher ed need an academic education is monumentally wrong, and on the other side of things, we're sending too many people to higher ed.

Posted by: Marshall | May 14, 2007 11:31:23 AM

I started college at 16. (I skipped my senior year of HS and kindergarten.) I hated HS so much, and I was learning so little, that I told my Ivy-League parents that I could either go to the world-class university that had accepted me, or I could drop out and eventually get my GED.

There were serious drawbacks to this: I was ineligible for a number of scholarships because of my weird academic status; I couldn't sign a number of contracts because of my age*; etc.

And yes, I was really immature, and really academically unprepared. However, I wouldn't have gotten either maturity or academic preparation at my small-town, anti-intellectual HS where I had *no* opportunity to develop social or coping skills.

Now Washington State has something like this as a formal program, where after grade 10 or something they let you take community college classes. I believe it's called Running Start, and my younger brother took quite a few classes this way.

My only concern is whether high-end universities will accept community college graduates. Currently AFAIK colleges consider one HS diploma to be more-or-less equivalent to another, so those going to high-end private HSs don't get *too* much of an edge. I don't know how private universities would then treat a CC graduate.

*This caused the most problem at hospitals, to tie into your health-care emphasis. They couldn't let me sign myself in and my parents were 3000 miles away. In general they just threw up their hands and said "we never asked your age - got it?"

Posted by: Morfydd | May 14, 2007 12:03:22 PM

Ezra, I suggest that you look into the track system that Germany has had in place for decades. As I recall, those who either fail tests at about 16 or who choose can move into schools that in effect are polytechnic in nature - similar to a trade master/apprentice relationship. I believe private firms play a major role in financially sponsoring and providing work-study arrangements.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | May 14, 2007 12:50:43 PM

I read about an alternative high school program that let at-risk students go into a voc-ed program where they combined work in their chosen field with school. There was, I believe, a medical technician and retail/business track.

What astonished people was that the student's co-workers really pushed them towards college, and they ended up with higher college entrance rates than the schools they left behind, even though the program was a "non-college track" one.

Part of the reason was that the employers had gotten to know them, and were willing to create work schedules to allow them to continue into college.

Posted by: tMo | May 14, 2007 1:33:52 PM

A lot of homeschoolers use community college as their last two years of high school.

Posted by: Cardinal Fang | May 14, 2007 2:30:39 PM

Chicago, eh? Totally off topic, but if you want to get a burger or something while you're in town, I'd be happy to show you around.

Posted by: Fnor | May 14, 2007 5:04:19 PM

I was technically in high school until 18, but, like a lot of the advanced kids in my school, started taking a bunch of courses from local colleges for my last 2 years. Theoretically, if schools in America were places anybody actually learned something of interest, I would say keep 'em in school till 18. As the situation practically is right now, most high schools are simply too mediocre academically - and socially, are extremely negative places for a huge number of kids - that keeping them in what is effectively a perverse sort of holding tank or prison is worthless or even harmful.

Posted by: burritoboy | May 14, 2007 8:01:15 PM

I am a high school guidance counselor. I have a problem with a proposal that would set up a system where a high proportion of students routinely left high school after their 10th grade year for college or community college. There are a number of reasons for this.

1.) Students master necessary academic skills over the 11th and 12th grade year. With the exception of students who are accellerated in math, 10th graders have not had 3 years of basic college prep math (Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2 . . . and Pre-Cal would be nice to have before college). Students typically do much more writing in the 11th and 12th grades, a skill that is crucial for college. 2 years of science is not really enough for college; the most advanced students might have completed Biology and Chemistry, but there wouldn't really be room for Physics. These students will be spending time in college learning things that should have been learned in high school.

2.) As other posters have pointed out, 15 is rather young to be making career choices. Students routinely use high school to gather more information about the world of work via paid employment, apprenticeships, job shadowing, and curricular vocational courses. Yes, the Germans have a system that is really neat and has zero chance of being adopted in the USA because our employers won't buy into it, and our parents won't stand for a system that locks their kids out of the chance for college.

3.) "Maturity" concerns. Kids who get the most out of their high school years typically spend time developing their leadership, planning, organizational, and other such social skills. 14 year olds typically are not ready for the level of meaningful institutional responsibility compared to 16-17 year olds. This cannot be measured by a test, but I do believe it is of value. What's more, unlike pre-cal or physics, 16 year olds who go to college early will be on a campus where they are the youngest and least experienced (and thus least suited for leadership roles). Oh, and wonder who will be making the decisions about where to go to college? My bet is for a 14 year old it will be mom and dad. Lets not even get into questions about drinking and sex.

4.) Here's where the rubber meets the road: students who leave high school after 2 years are going to be at a competative disadvantage to students who spend 4 years in high school. Have fun going to non-selective schools. Have fun not being competative for scholarships. Have fun scoring lower on the SAT and ACT than you would a year or two later. Yes, selective schools aren't all that, there is perfectly fine community colleges, but at the end of the day kids are going to be shortchanged.

5.) Another aspect: we have a *lot* of non-accelerated kids who come to 9th grade not ready for Algebra 1 who leave our school having completed Trig or Pre-Cal. We can't do that in 2 or 3 years. We need 4 for that. Of my students, there are 10 times as many who need 4 years of high school compared to those who could probably get by with 3.

That said, I support allowing the option of kids testing out of school, but its totally unrealistic to think that this will free up billions and billions of dollars without seriously shortchanging students. On the other hand, many of my academically advanced seniors graduate with a semester or so of college credits earned in a partnership with our local community college . . . and many of my non-advanced students earn certification in vocational fields via the same system.

And even though this is long already, while I recognize that some schools or some students have worthless 12th grade years, that isn't how it is everywhere. Most of our high schools are pretty darn good. The only students of mine who have worthless senior years are those who choose to be worthless.

Posted by: William | May 15, 2007 7:36:15 AM

I spent my senior year at the local gasthaus. My mom wondered why I came home from school drunk every afternoon.

Posted by: merlallenm | May 15, 2007 8:56:42 AM

I found these postings very interesting. I have a HS sophomore takes concurrent classes in HS, and only lacks 4 credits being classified as a SR next year. So, she started taking some additional college classes this school year. This will classify her as a SR in the fall and allow her to graduate from HS in May of 08. She is on the DISTINGUISHED program in her HS, and takes only honors, AP, or concurrent courses in HS. Thus far she has maintained a 4.0 in her college classes. She was a SEPT baby, and therefore WILL be 18 when she starts college. This past weekend a friend made mention that there was "some article ??" about early HS grads not qualfying for scholarships and college honor classes/programs due to their early HS graduation. Does anyone know if there is any validity to that statement?

Posted by: LISA | May 21, 2007 8:54:34 PM

liqingchao 07年08月30日
google排名
 google排名
 wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power level
wow power level
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling
Crm
Crm
呼叫中心
 呼叫中心
 客户关系管理
 客户关系管理
 北京月嫂
 北京月嫂
 china tour
china tour
hongkong hotel
hongkong hotel
beijing tour
beijing tour