castledoom.com

[JuntaJoe]

I found this intriguing. I'm especially interested in hearing what our foreign members think about it and how it compares to their programs.

Should Kids Be Able to Graduate After 10th Grade?

High school sophomores should be ready for college by age 16. That's the message from New Hampshire education officials, who announced plans Oct. 30 for a new rigorous state board of exams to be given to 10th graders. Students who pass will be prepared to move on to the state's community or technical colleges, skipping the last two years of high school.

Once implemented, the new battery of tests is expected to guarantee higher competency in core school subjects, lower dropout rates and free up millions of education dollars. Students may take the exams - which are modeled on existing AP or International Baccalaureate tests - as many times as they need to pass. Or those who want to go to a prestigious university may stay and finish the final two years, taking a second, more difficult set of exams senior year. "We want students who are ready to be able to move on to their higher education," says Lyonel Tracy, New Hampshire's Commissioner for Education. "And then we can focus even more attention on those kids who need more help to get there."

But can less schooling really lead to better-prepared students at an earlier age? Outside of the U.S., it's actually a far less radical notion than it sounds. Dozens of industrialized countries expect students to be college-ready by age 16, and those teenagers consistently outperform their American peers on international standardized tests.

With its new assessment system, New Hampshire is adopting a key recommendation of a blue-ribbon panel called the New Commission on Skills of the American Workforce. In 2006, the group issued a report called Tough Choices or Tough Times , a blueprint for how it believes the U.S. must dramatically overhaul education policies in order to maintain a globally competitive economy. "Forty years ago, the United States had the best educated workforce in the world," says William Brock, one of the commission's chairs and a former U.S. Secretary of Labor. "Now we're No. 10 and falling."

As more and more jobs head overseas, Brock and others on the commission can't stress enough how dire the need is for educational reform. "The nation is running out of time," he says.

New Hampshire's announcement comes as Utah and Massachusetts declared that they, too, plan to enact some of the commission's other proposals, such as universal Pre-K and better teacher pay and training. Still more states are expected to sign on in December. And the largest teacher union in the U.S., the National Education Association, is encouraging its affiliates to support such efforts.

Some reform advocates would like to see the report's testing proposals replace current No Child Left Behind legislation. "It makes accountability much more meaningful by stressing critical thinking and true mastery," says Tracy.

No date has been set for when New Hampshire will start administering the new set of exams, which have yet to be developed. But to achieve the goal of sending kids to college at 16, Tracy and his colleagues recognize preparation will have to start early. Nearly four years ago, New Hampshire began an initiative called Follow the Child. Starting practically from birth, educators are expected to chart children's educational progress year to year. In the future, this effort will be bolstered by formalized curricula that specify exactly what kids should know by the end of each grade level.

That should help minimize the need for review year to year. It will also bring New Hampshire's education framework much closer to what occurs in many high-performing European and Asian nations. "It's about defining what lessons students should master and then teaching to those points," says Marc Tucker, co-chair of the commission and president of the National Center for Education and the Economy in Washington. "Kids at every level will be taking tough courses and working hard."

Right now, Tucker argues, most American teenagers slide through high school, viewing it as a mandatory pit stop to hang out and socialize. Of those who do go to college, half attend community college. So Tucker's thinking is why not let them get started earlier? If that happened nationwide, he estimates the cost savings would add up to $60 billion a year. "All money that can be spent either on early childhood education or elsewhere," he says.

Critics of cutting high school short, however, worry that proposals such as New Hampshire's could exacerbate existing socioeconomic gaps. One key concern is whether test results, at age 16, are really valid enough to indicate if a child should go to university or instead head to a technical school - with the latter almost certainly guaranteeing lower future earning potential. "You know that the kids sent in that direction are going to be from low-income, less-educated families while wealthy parents won't permit it," says Iris Rotberg, a George Washington University education policy professor, who notes similar results in Europe and Asia. She predicts, in turn, that disparity will mean "an even more polarized higher education structure - and ultimately society - than we already have."

It's a charge that Tracy denies. "We're simply telling students it's okay to go at their own pace," he says. Especially if that pace is a little quicker than the status quo.

[NibbyCat]

It depends on what the kid wants out of life. I have known of people who were taking college-level classes while in middle school, one woman I know got her AS before she got her HS diploma.

[CharlieBrown]

The last year of high school is a waste of time. Therefore I believe they can cut it by a year for most, not all because some kids don't get it and can't pass their classes. Some kids get most of what they need done by the time they enter their junior year of high school so there should be an option for them to get their diploma then.

[JuntaJoe]

I've always felt it might be a novel move for my state to grant local voting rights to 16 year old's.

Clearly just local voting would be allowed, but this would allow the older students to actually vote for councilmen and school board members.



I think it would help two ways.

First it might get them more aware of local elections. As an adult I'm in the voting booth at least once a year. But when I first started voting it was all about the president. Everything else looked like a long slog through a bunch of unknowns.

Second is I think so many 18 year old's don't bother voting is because they become politically aware several years prior to that, but are disenfranchised. After several years of frustration at not having a voice most just walk away for a solid decade. Giving them a modest voice at 16 might keep them in the fold and short circuiting that nasty habit of not voting until they close in on 30.

[CharlieBrown]

I wouldn't give sixteen-year-olds the right to vote. Unless they pass some type of test to prove they are not as dumb as their counterparts (is counterpart one word?).

[JuntaJoe]

The word is fine, but the reference confuses me.

Who are these counterparts you refer to?

Adults? Teens in other nations?



But I'll reference both in a single response. There are idiots in every age group. Youths just have more energy in their application.

Hey, I well know the risks of letting them vote. Youths are more idealistic. That equates to a higher percentage of liberalism. People grow more conservative as they age and deal with adult problems.

But I think that risk is worth it because the more you vote the sooner you become a more discerning and responsible voter.

I didn't vote in knee jerk fashion this time even though I didn't want Obama to win. I cast votes for Libertarians, Republicans, and even a Democrat in one race. I voted for people I liked and did the research on. Every race was examined.

Older teens can make rational decisions about things that affect them locally. Hitting a pothole on a bike makes one as mad as hitting it with a car. When the street floods you learn about drainage issues. A youth pays local sales tax as well.

They will grasp they pay taxes for local works. If they get a sales tax hike and that old pothole never got filled they will understand their councilman failed them.

Give then a world they actually are a part of and they'll make a fair decision on it.

[CharlieBrown]

When I say counterpart I mean the sixteen-year-old who chooses not to take such a test.

I am a young man, 20 years old. I can recall my days as a sixteen-year-old clearly and I can tell you looking back that I, today, would not want the me-of-old influencing the political process of yesterday. And for that matter I wouldn't want anybody in my age group at that time to vote. Why? Because we didn't really care about the problems and we didn't really know that there anything we could do about it. A year or two ago my school asked for additional funding to avoid state control. I would not trust a sixteen-year-old to make a decission of that magnitude because A. they really don't care and B. they DON'T PAY TAXES.

Sure children are our future but not that early.

Maybe if US Govt. was taught to a larger extent than it is today then maybe they could but the fact that they don't pay the taxes that an average adult does makes it a hard argument to sell.

[JuntaJoe]

Sounds like a good excuse to put a voting and basic local politics class in schools if you ask me.

[s_stabeler]

good point, but this is the age at which kids tend not to pay attention in school....

[JuntaJoe]

No. That is an age where it is harder to capture their interest.

Call me idealist on the subject, but just because modern education is crap doesn't mean it has to be.

At some point in the 60's and 70's some utopians seized the fact that rigid education had certain faults, even though it delivered results.

What was wrong was not change, but the actual changes that were used.

Self pace, small work groups, challenge, automation, and relating dry studies to the world the kids lived in were delivered along with quack psychology, anti-establishment initiation, lowest common denominator teaching, and thought correctness.

The cure was delivered with a brand new disease.

[CharlieBrown]

I agree with you that the way in which we teach needs to change, going into the education system I hope to do a little of that myself, but your proposal for a seperate basic local politics class would only work effectively in a large city because there is simply more to cover. If kids had to take a local politics class in my small town I could see most of them loosing interest before they even gained any.

Now what they could do is incorporate more local politics into government classes that already exist. I could see that working but I still wouldn't lower the voting age because they don't pay taxes.

[JuntaJoe]

Sales taxes and their parent's taxes. A minor does have impact on the economy.


As for your comment about rural versus urban settings I think that points to the need for flex time built into all subjects. So much is devoted to mandatory curriculum and mandatory testing that the classes cannot adapt to the local needs and culture. But you really cannot risk mucking with mandatory curriculum.

Yeah, we are diverging from the topic a bit, but we're still on teens.

Anyway, it's the testing plan that's flawed. They give the tests at the end of the year and waste massive amount of time teaching to the tests. The tests should be held on October first. It should cover the prior year. Year end grades should hint to students that they might consider specialized summer classes to make up ground. Then when the school year starts the schools can devote up to half a day to review material for the tests. Once the test is held the yest of the school year is free for traditional education.

This method also defuses social promotion. Schools that habitually pass students in classes who then fail in the following year are not being honest graders in the regular classrooms.

Yeah, there is a minor flaw in my plan. The senior year isn't tested. But honestly, if we could actually get most students properly through a quality 11 years then we would be gaining ground.


CB, you are a lot further "left" than me. But if you really want to make a difference in public education you need to realize the teacher's unions and special interest groups have thrown wrenches into the system. Yeah, so have the right wingers too. To really have an impact you have to put it all under a microscope call the crap what it really is. The regimentation method of old America produced results. Casual education has failed our youth. A child needs boundaries and goals. Hell, how can they learn to stretch boundaries if there are none? It's also work. A child's employment.

Now I know that my favoring the return of corporal punishment would never get off the ground, but perhaps the military justice system has a good answer here. They have the traditional justice system and real felons always go through it, but for certain offenses the soldier can opt for administrative punishment. Basically they throw themselves at the mercy of their commander and try to mitigate their actions. Frankly, there's nothing that will get your attention like digging a huge hole and then filling it back in. Only abuse there is the person's pride and their muscle aches. Principals need expand their arsenal of punishments. Nothing like buying a handful of manual lawnmowers and saving gas and time spent on grounds personnel. A week of very early arrival to raise the flag hits your slacker teen right where it hurts. His snooze time.

You can be harsh with the kids without abusing them. It just takes some clever thought and planning. The whole faculty needs to get onboard.

My highschool had exactly one guidance counselor, one nurse, one principal, 2 assistants, one clerk, and the standard faculty to run a 2000 student school. No cops. No therapists. No raft of counselors. No teaching assistants. No big administrative staff.

When stuff needed to get done then it turned to the faculty, student body, and parents to assist the principals. They ran the school completely. It was their castle. Their little corporation. The school board and central admin was there to keep the place supplied and maintained, and then stay the hell out of the way. If the kids all graduated like they were supposed to then the district kept its hands off.