I’m a sucker for thoughtful iconoclasts and unconventional wisdom, which may explain why I find a radical proposal being bandied about this week by Michael Goldstein, founder of the Match Charter Public High School in Boston, so appealing. Goldstein is arguing in favor of letting kids who want to drop out of high school leave, but creating funding to let them return once they’ve tasted life outside of school.
The idea is so out-of-the-mainstream that the Washington Post’s Jay Matthews gave nearly his entire column to let Goldstein explain himself because, as Matthews put it, “anyone who is willing to risk his splendid reputation to this degree should have a chance to explain all the details.”
But Goldstein’s idea is no crazier than the naive faith we place in the magic power of a high school diploma, which we treat as if it’s a magic amulet, protecting its owner. Too often we move kids up and move ‘em out, diploma in hand, and put a check mark next to the kid’s name on our To Do list. So what if the kid can hardly read? He’s got a diploma….Mission Accomplished!
“When half the kids in most U.S. cities essentially reject the basic product called ’school’ — many would leave a lot earlier if they were allowed by parents and the law, then the best path forward is not only different schools (with caring, discipline, and rigor), but also offering a different product entirely,” Goldstein explains. The “different product” is letting the kid drop out but putting the money the school district spends per pupil in escrow, like a medical savings account or an IRA. “Then it can’t be touched for at least two years,” Goldstein writes, “force-feed kids the feeling of the dead-end life they’re embarking on.”
Goldstein has more to say…a lot more, and I urge you to read his explanation in Matthews column. But the argument he’s making is familiar to any kid who ever announced he was running away from home, only to have his mom help him pack. She wasn’t being cruel. She knew that once you started to think about what comes next, you’d be back before the streetlights came on. Mom was no dummy, and neither is Goldstein.
There is another benefit to the Let-’Em-Go-They’ll-Be-Back idea. In too many of our lowest performing schools, teachers often function as social workers and salesmen, selling reluctant learners on the benefits of education and persuading them to act in their own best interests. This takes time—lots of time—from teaching and learning. Subtract the time lost to disruption from students whose relationship with school is fundamentally coercive, and you begin to see an important component of the achievement gap in action as willing, capable learners suffer from neglect. We function, in essence, like a restaurant owner whose customers go hungry while the wait staff spends all its time on the sidewalk trying to entice more customers inside. Eventually, we lose even those sitting inside waiting for a meal. Under Goldstein’s scenario, we take care of the customers we have, and give them a great meal. The others will come inside and sit down once word of mouth from the exiting diners gets around. We give a great education—not just a bare minimum—to those who are motivated and ready. We get the rest when they’re ready. What Goldstein’s plan implies, correctly I think, is that there are some number of students who simply will not take our word for it that they need an education; they simply will have to discover it on their own.
Every inner city teacher knows a kid that this plan could help. Maybe lots of them. Last year, I had a an unusually bright young man in my class who would regularly roll into class at 10am and spend the morning sleeping at his desk. He was literally a non-participant in my class. No amount of parental intervention, counseling or detention could get him to lift a pencil. When I finally told him he was on track to get held back he told me—earnestly, not defiantly—”I can’t get held back. I do well on the tests!” And he was right. We couldn’t hold over a kid who gets even a 2 out of 4 on the New York State ELA test. He could literally have shown up for no other day all year than the test day and still passed. He was smart enough to have figured out the game, but not experienced enough to see that an education would help him.
Even when he fell asleep on the test and scored a “1″ my principal refused to hold him over, citing the statistic that “if a child is held over one year, he’s 50% less likely to graduate from high school.” (There’s that magical belief in the power of a high school diploma at work in the lives of real people.) Drum me out of the profession if you must for saying so, but what that student needed wasn’t to be promoted, but an old-fashioned kick in the ass. He will get moved up and moved out and come nowhere close to reaching his potential. But he’s smart enough to learn eventually, under the scenario that that Goldstein lays out, that education holds all kind of promise for him. If I couldn’t teach him that, and my administration refused to try, eventually life will teach him. The way his life is heading now, when he learns that lesson, it’ll be too late. Goldstein’s idea holds out hope for kids like that. By insisting that student conform to our time schedule, we will have nothing for him when the time is right.
Great post. Great ideas.
One minor quibble: many people who make good money with their hands (plumbers, mechanics, etc.) need very little schooling, and they won’t be back. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Not everyone was meant to work with their head.
On the other hand, people who work with knowledge must educate themselves forever. There is no “diploma” (who cares about high school?), only a relentless push forward into more knowledge. Institutional school that necessarily treats everyone the same (like Finland does to get good “average” scores on international tests) is pretty much a waste of time for people who will be competing in a flat world. Competition is global, knowledge (and jobs) are transmitted at the speed of light over the internet, and there is no mercy. A billion Chinese and Indians entering the free market workforce right now; this gives them more cognitive elite greater than our entire population, and many of our best knowledge jobs can be done anywhere an internet connection exists. Soft America had better toughen up, and Goldstein is on the right track.
“Under Goldstein’s scenario, we take care of the customers we have, and give them a great meal.”
If we were giving the customers we have such a great meal, would any of them be walking out of our fine establishment?
We don’t do exit surveys with struggling and out of school youth. If we did we might learn things we do not want to acknowledge. For example, are we losing these kids at sixteen years of age, or at twelve, when we allow them to graduate out of the elementary system unable to read, write, or perform basic math function at the level required for high school work? Do we really know that these kids are giving up on their education — or just giving up on their high school? Did their high school test them upon entry to discover and remediate deficiencies? How quick is the school’s response to academic failure; perhaps the last semester of high school when the student hears from their counselor, “Well, you’re obviously not college material.” (In fact, this may be a message they’ve been receiving since kindergarten, depending on their circumstances.) Being academically “off-track” during the first year of high school is a strong predictor of school dropout. Off track becomes derailed without intervention.
However, in a stronger 9-14 system — yes, 9-14 — there are solutions to the problem of derailing. Accurate testing, remedial treatment, meaningful classes that award credits toward a degree or credential (certificate) that allows entry into skilled work, are all worthy policy and practice provisions for the under-educated and under-motivated potential dropout.
Having said all of that, I am reminded of the death of a (former) friend’s cat. The cat was old and decrepit, and spent most of his time curled up by the water heater. For some unfathomable reason this (former) friend would allow the cat to run outside. The cat was killed by a coyote. “Ah, but at least he died free.” said my (former) friend. “No, he died scared and in severe pain!” I replied. The idea that a 16 year old for whom someone is still legally responsible, who cannot legally have a checking account or sign a rental agreement or contract, is going to successfully “kick around and learn about life” before defying the odds and returning to complete his education is both incredibly short-sighted and, frankly, as cruel as turning a helpless animal out to the wolves and coyotes.
For a better understanding of the problem and solutions in action I recommend “Minding the Gap; Why Integrating High School with College Makes Sense and How to Do It,” by Nancy Hoffman, et. al. To see these solutions in action take a look at the Bridge Program, Victor Valley College, Victorville, California.
<<< If we were giving the customers we have such a great meal, would any of them be walking out of our fine establishment?
Because they're not hungry.
<<< If we were giving the customers we have such a great meal, would any of them be walking out of our fine establishment?
Because they’re not hungry.
District of Columbia Public Schools Chancellor, Michelle Rhee, spoke on the future of urban school reform at the American Enterprise Institute Wednesday, February 13, 2008. The following is Michelle Rhee in her own words:
I’m going to tell you a couple stories. The other day, I met with some students from a high school, one of our failing high schools in Anacostia. One of them emailed me and said they wanted me to come out and meet with some of the students. I went out. A group of students were there. They were incredibly prepared. They had their list all typed up, of the things that they wanted to talk to me about. The things ranged from them saying, you know, “We have on average about 15 teachers absent a day. How can you expect us to learn when the teachers aren’t actually showing up to teach us?” Have a good answer for that one. When I asked them, “What is it that I could do, that you believe would have the biggest impact on the education that you’re getting everyday?” The first thing out of their mouths was, “Bring us more great teachers.” They didn’t say, “Put Pizza Hut in the school,” and that sort of thing. They were saying, “Great teachers.”
Tell me these kids are not hungry to learn.
Of course those kids are hungry to learn. And as your anecdote shows, they’re keenly aware they’re being underserved. In my analogy, they’re the ones sitting in the restaurant while the wait staff works the curb. The kids who Goldstein is referring to are not the ones lobbying for great teachers.
I do not think Goldstein’s plan would recapture as many dropouts as he thinks. Going back to school after reaching the age of majority can be a daunting experience, especially when factoring in possible opportunity costs. Goldstein does not answer some fundamental questions: At what point are children falling irrefutably behind, why, and where are the remedial measures being applied if at all? Also, how does Goldstein plan to recapture these dropouts who, perhaps rightfully, reject institutional learning, when the remedy is to return to institutional (perhaps community college) learning. Unless and until these questions are answered I can’t see dumping kids off at the curb the answer to the busy teacher’s problem.
“We have on average about 15 teachers absent a day. How can you expect us to learn when the teachers aren’t actually showing up to teach us?” Have a good answer for that one.
Easy to answer that one. You can’t. Just like communism, you can’t make the school systems work well no matter what you do. Changing the system is the only solution.
Offer the $10,000 we pay for each of these students to get a terrible education to the free market, with no strings attached or district rules. No teaching certificate required for teachers. We merely set the learning requirements for each year and test for performance. If you show no improvement or miss the standards, you lose your students.
You would have teachers showing up fast, as they could make $50k per year with only 5 kids to teach them out of their house, which would cut out the admin and building costs. The improvement for students would be rapid and massive.
And the teachers would show up.