Memory fades, but there were New York City schools chancellors before Joel Klein, and the guy who had the job most recently takes to the New York Times op-ed page with five ways to fix education. The first suggestion on Harold Levy’s list, however, is an eyebrow-raiser. He wants to raise the age of compulsory education.
Twenty-six states require children to attend school until age 16, the rest until 17 or 18, but we should ensure that all children stay in school until age 19. Simply completing high school no longer provides students with an education sufficient for them to compete in the 21st-century economy. So every child should receive a year of post-secondary education.
College entrance is still something largely driven by interest and merit. Might that have something to do with the generally sound state of U.S. higher ed and the relatively poor state of our K-12 system? Curiously, Levy’s fifth fix is to produce more qualified applicants to college. “Half of the freshmen at community colleges and a third of freshmen at four-year colleges matriculate with academic skills in at least one subject too weak to allow them to do college work,” he complains. ”Unsurprisingly, the average college graduation rates even at four-year institutions are less than 60 percent.” Surely, compelling college attendance will only exacerbate this issue, and make remediating the failures of K-12 education the problem of our colleges and universities.
Levy’s piece is a good example of what might be termed credentialism–favoring the prize over the accomplishment it represents. While high school graduates may earn more and enjoy better health than dropouts, the diploma does not magically confer these benefits. The person who has reached this level of achievement is also more likely to live a productive, stable life. People with health club memberships might be in better shape than those without. But it doesn’t follow that the key to health and longevity is to give every American a health club membership. You have to be inclined to work out. Likewise, married people live longer, healthier lives. Where’s the op-ed in favor of compelling marriages?
It’s hard to see how flooding colleges with unprepared and unwilling students will do anything other than damage a productive higher ed system. Levy favors the federal government paying for the extra year, noting it would be a turning point at least as important as “the 1944 G.I. Bill that made college affordable to our returning service personnel after World War II.” Fine, but the G.I. Bill created the opportunity for veterans to attend college. It didn’t conscript them to go.
I would rather drop the age to 14/completion of 8th grade. One of the elephants in the education room is the issue of classroom disruptions. Kids who have no interest in school are disruptions and the kids who are trying to learn something are paying the price. It’s an academic environment, or should be; not a babysitting service and not a warehouse.
To me, fixing that problem means changing several things. First, all kids with serious criminal, behavioral or psychiatric problems should be removed from the regular classes/schools. Second, mainstreaming should be limited to kids without significant behavioral issues whose intellectual function is close to the rest of the class. Third, as many classes as possible should be grouped homogeneously, even if it means crossing age groups. Every kid should be taught at his own level and advanced as soon as mastery is achieved and that includes kids at the top of the academic spectrum. Kids who are so far behind that they can’t understand what is being taught are very likely to be discipline problems, as are kids who are so far ahead that they are bored. Fourth, we need to discard the idea that every kid should be on a college-prep path. Many kids would be better served with good vocational options, perhaps in cooperation with local community colleges. I like New Hampshire’s idea.
If we did all of the above, maybe we’d have a much smaller group of kids who are totally disinterested and likely to be disruptive. They might actually CHOOSE to stay in school, pay attention and learn something. Until then, forcing those kids to stay in school only creates problems; schools are better off without them.
What’s your opinion of Jay Mathews’s related idea: Compel participation in AP?
While I understand your concern about motivation, I wonder whether there could be a less ham-fisted strategy for increasing low-income youths’ participation in higher education. It’s troubling that low-income youth from the highest quartile are less likely to attend college than their below-average wealthy peers are. There’s also some compelling research to suggest that the very prospect of college–and financial aid for college–can be academically motivating for low-income students as young as 11 or 12.
What combination of counseling and financial support can increase low-income students’ college attendance and completion rates?
I’d take a bullet for Uncle Jay, but I think AP for all is exactly the sort of thing I described as credentialism. The point is not to take AP, but to get to a level of readiness where it makes good academic sense to do so. That’s where the benefit comes from; not from sitting in a room where the class is being taught.
Your absolutely right about the troubling statistics, Claus. But the answer to low particpation rates, I think, is sell it, not compel it.
I read Levy’s article and had the feeling it was missing the point. Much of the worry about secondary education concerns the drop out rate, and simply adding on more years does nothing to address this. And nothing for the number of students who, even if they stay enrolled in school, do not seem to be actually learning what their classes aim to teach.
I do think a greater focus on making sure that students know that the goal of high school is to prepare them for college work (not just that college is something “some kids” do after high school) is an important one.
“the point is not to take AP but to get to a level of readiness where it makes good academic success to do so” – ABSOLUTELY. It is highly desirable to get as many students as possible to that point, but they should not take AP until they are there; otherwise they are compromising the level of the class for those who are ready and who will score well on the test. It is theoretically possible to offer two levels of AP classes, but doing so would explode the pretense that all are equally prepared and motivated, so it won’t happen.
High schools have significant problems of their own, but elementary and middle schools are equally guilty of failing to educate too many kids. Fuzzy curriculum choices, differentiated instruction, social promotion and groupwork are producing kids who lack the foundational knowledge and skills that they need for high school, workplace and/or college success. You can’t build a building or a bride without a well-designed foundation and real education requires the same.
Robert,
I read Levy’s piece this morning and all I could think was it’s a good things he’s the past Chancellor.
what Paul said!