New Plan Lets Top HS Students Graduate 2 Years Early

Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that education commissioners in Connecticut, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont have pledged to sign up 10 to 20 schools each for a pilot project that would allow 10th graders who pass a battery of tests to get a diploma two years early and immediately enroll in community college. The new system of high school coursework with the accompanying board examinations is modeled largely on systems in high-performing nations including Denmark, England, Finland, France and Singapore. 'We've looked at schools all over the world, and if you walk into a high school in the countries that use these board exams, you'll see kids working hard, whether they want to be a carpenter or a brain surgeon.' says Marc S. Tucker, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy. Kentucky's commissioner of education, Terry Holliday, says high school graduation requirements have long been based on having students accumulate enough course credits to graduate. 'We've been tied to seat time for 100 years. This would allow an approach based on subject mastery — a system based around move-on-when-ready,' says Holliday. However some school officials are concerned about the social and emotional implications of 16-year-olds going off to college. 'That's far too young to be thrown into an environment with college students who are about 18 to 23 years old. ... Most of them are just not mature enough to handle that,' says Mary Anderson, headmaster of Pinkerton Academy."

Comments

Re:Why go to community college?

[natehoy]

I live in Maine, so this has received some extra coverage here. According to what I'm seeing, this is really targeting the kid who has no interest in going on to a 4-year college, but instead wants to jumpstart their career in a skilled or semi-skilled trade (auto mechanic, plumber, etc).

There's also an additional benefit - it identifies weaknesses in those kids that fail the boards, and part of the plan is to focus on subject areas that specific kids are weak on. So if you did well in English on the boards but flunked Math, they might give you more Math classes in 11th grade and back off on the English classes. The target being a student who is well-rounded enough to pass all segments of the board exam.

In some ways, it divides the kids between those who want to continue on with education, and those who want to get education over with as quickly as possible (for one of many reasons) and get on with a career. It almost turns high school into a 2-year or 4-year option, much like college is today.

Those who want a 4-year+ degree will stay in high school and go on the Advanced Placement track like they do today.

Those who do not can take the board exams in 10th grade and, if they pass, they can go to community college or start their careers, with a valid high school diploma. They can continue on to the 11th and 12th grades if they wish, or if they fail the board exam the areas they failed in can be focused on.

Yes, to a point, this is "teaching to the test", and there are some valid concerns surrounding that. But I'm not entirely convinced it's any worse than "teaching to a grade", and at least those kids that want out and are willing to work hard can get out with a diploma.

Re:Ill placed worries

[Ralph Spoilsport]

the problem is, the test is not likely to test emotional maturity. They might have the book learnin' but they won't have the lived experience. The teenaged brain is literally missing important parts that aren't fully developed until 19 or 20, mostly having to do with risk assessment and sociality. There's a reason why a 16 yr old is many times more likely to wreck a car than a 19 year old.

Also, I teach some classes in media theory, I recently had a girl in the class who was "super bright" and graduated HS early. She was 17, and she pretty well flunked out.

I completely agree with your fear re: the "Everyone Is A Winner!!!" idiocy so prevalent in the USA. Given the power of money in the USA I am quite certain that rich assholes would buy their kids through the process by dumbing down the test. We can already see that in the stupendously stupid grade values given to students in University.Here, anything over an 80 is in the A range. Fuck. When I was a kid, you had to get better than a 92 to get in the A range. And today, less than a 50 is a fail, in my youth, less than 65 was a fail. Why the softening? Parents who give money to schools want their babies to come out with A's all around...

I think that if this "testing out" of high school is implemented, your worst fears will come true: rich little idiots will end up in university at a young age, and here in university, we'll be passing them along because of the grade inflation.

Argh.

RS

Re:Ill placed worries

[Red Flayer]

I dunno about that...

I had 33 college credits under my belt (from AP classes & night classes at the local community college) when I finished my sophomore year of high school. But there was no way I was emotionally ready for college. Yes, I could do all the work. Yes, I could force myself to study when I'd rather be playing. Because I'd been in classes with older kids for several years, because I had four older siblings, I think I was pretty mature for my age. But I still wasn't ready.

What there should be are more programs like Simon's Rock of Bard College. A transition program for kids academically ready for college, but not quite there emotionally, psychologically, etc.

One note on this proposal that I find abhorrent -- community college is not the place for these kids to take coursework if they leave high school early. Not that there's anything wrong with community college for a lot of people (I did my time there for money & scheduling reasons)... but the best and brightest should be surrounded by the best and brightest. Let them be challenged by their peers, not held back.

This was a fundamental problem with the trial acceleration program I took part in. Yes, I went to high school for math & science classes as a seventh-grader... but I took those classes with the regular college prep kids, not with the honors college prep kids. This held me back; I learned some bad habits, and I wasn't challenged by the pace of the coursework nor by my peers in the class. Nor did I get the benefit of the best teachers, who taught HCP classes only.

As for your final issue:

I guarantee that if this gets passed there will be an outcry of "my child shouldn't be discriminated against. (S)he should be able to head to college too at this grade!" They're going to have to be ready for that.

That's exactly what happened in my school system. When I was a senior in high school (I couldn't graduate early because of the required 16 quarters of gym class per state law in NJ), my AP classes were filled with sophomores who weren't ready for them. The success of those of us in the trial run led the system to offer early AP classes to all students... they actually made AP classes a requirement for graduation for college prep kids. This killed the quality of those classes... AP Bio, AP English, AP European History were killed by the fact that 90% of the kids in the class didn't have the foundation to learn collegiate level material.

Anyway, I'm rambling. But you're absolutely right that the no-child-allowed-to-excel-if-my-child-doesn't-qualify people are going to cause big problems for these states and districts.

This should be how all schools work

[aztektum]

If a student is performing well, give them higher level content. This "everyone is the same because we say so" and keeping a linear structure to learning for all is asinine.

Re:Chicken or Egg?

[Aladrin]

My highschool had 'dual enrollment' with the college. That meant you took college classes while you were in high school for credit in each. Some classes were at the highschool, but some were at the college. They didn't let me start until my Junior year (I tried to go my freshman year), but guess what? I was 16.

On the other hand, after seeing how I breezed through it, and my sister had even better grades than I did, historically speaking, they let her go as a freshman.

So yeah, as a 14 year old, she was in college.

In my area, it was easy to find 16 yo's in college.

Going to college young was a great experience

[Anonymous Coward]

However some school officials are concerned about the social and emotional implications of 16-year-olds going off to college. 'That's far too young to be thrown into an environment with college students who are about 18 to 23 years old.

I went to college full-time at 15 and it was great; much better than high school. The "social and emotional implications" were overwhelmingly positive; I grew a lot more from being in college than high school. People mature when you stop treating them like kids, and start acting responsibly when you make them responsible for themselves. Once during freshman year I had to go to back my high school to get a transcript or something, and it was very jarring when some teachers I encountered treated me like a high school student--someone whom they don't trust to act maturely and who has to be herded around to classes.

Re:Ill placed worries

[Onymous Coward]

It isn't like there's some "maturity lobe" that sprouts out of your brain on your 19th birthday.

Actually, there is kind of. The prefrontal cortex, responsible for "executive" thinking (e.g., self-control), doesn't finish developing until the early 20's.

So you're wrong there, but your general idea of maturity progression being dependent on the individual I agree with.

Re:Ill placed worries

[toadlife]

what's the harm in being stuck in a situation that could be too much to handle?

For my wife who went off to college at age 16, the harm was massive bleeding ulcers in her stomach, brought on by stress, which resulted in a nice hospital stay.