Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Plan Lets Top HS Students Graduate 2 Years Early

Posted by timothy on from the chipping-at-the-prison-wall dept.

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."

8 of 425 comments (clear)

  1. Ill placed worries by pwnies · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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,

    Exactly. That's why we're only sending the top students. There will always be outliers who will be able to fit in at a collegeriate level when they're 16. That's the whole point of this program.
    Our worry shouldn't be whether or not they can fit in at that level (I know plenty of 16 year olds who have a better head on their shoulders than many college freshmen). Rather, our concern should be whether or not we have an accurate way of determining if a particular student is ready to move on. What we have to ensure is that this program doesn't fall prey to overzealous parents - especially in the "everyone is a winner" mentality that we currently possess in America. 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.

    1. Re:Ill placed worries by Renraku · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This will last until some parent decides that their kid is smarter than 'the system' and sues for 'discrimination' against '(social class)'. Where (social class) can be race, disorder, sex, location, criminal record, etc. It'll quickly be axed by the legal department of whatever schools are taking part in it. Even without this, there are still a LOT of parents who call up the teachers and demand better grades for their snowflakes.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    2. Re:Ill placed worries by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nonsense.

      The extra 2 years doesn't help anything.

      HELL, an extra 6 years doesn't help anything quite often.

      The people with talent are having their time wasted due to boredom and those without talent
      are also having their talent wasted due to boredom. Artificially extending childhood just
      feeds on itself.

      Off to college at 16 is not entirely unprecedented.

      The cultural failings that cause 16 year old to be children aren't fixed by subjecting them to 2 more years of high school.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:Ill placed worries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nature or nurture? We really have no way of knowing.

      You're on the right track, but I'd just like to mention that it's very easy to know this.

      Spend time with a teenager and treat him like an equal if inexperienced adult and he will likely respond like an adult.

      Spend time with a teenager and treat him like an inferior immature kid and he will likely respond like a kid.

      It's worked that way with every teenager I know. If everybody treated teenagers like they were inexperienced adults and we let them have older peers to learn from, we would not have the stereotype of them being older kids nor a huge segment of society living down to those expectations. Cordoning teenagers off in schools and letting them only interact with people their age is one of the worst things we've done to them, next only to putting other adults in inappropriate positions of power over them, e.g. the PA story.

    4. Re:Ill placed worries by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It wasn't that long ago if you were 16 and couldn't fit in with adults, you'd be considered an idiot. It's time we stop this teenager nonsense. It's really only been in the last 50 years or so that there has been anything between child and adult and every one got along just fine like that. Throwing teenager in between those only delays responsibility. Teenagers know, if not explicitly, at least implicitly, that they aren't being treated like adults so there is no reason to act like one. Treat them like adults, and you'll see them mature a lot faster than just sitting around waiting for them to reach some magical arbitrary age.

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    5. Re:Ill placed worries by wurble · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The true value of college for the most successful people in the country is not education, it's networking. Who you befriend in college and the contacts and connections you form are the greatest value you can gain from college. Successfully taking advantage of networking opportunities requires one NOT be socially inept or awkward. Being younger than everyone else puts one at a disadvantage in such situations. You only get one shot at undergrad college really. If you take that shot while too young, you'll never get the most out of it. Sure you may get an education, but you won't get the same friends.

      So sure, someone who goes to college early may enter the workplace earlier as well. They are more likely to enter the workplace at a lower point of entry though. Someone who enters college at the appropriate age will have greater social opportunities in college and thus greater potential for forge contacts and connections which will in turn land them a much better job when they graduate. Obviously this is provided they take advantage of those opportunities. Someone younger will simply not have those opportunities presented.

      Networking is the real value of ivy league schools. Truthfully, the difference in what you learn at an ivy league school and what you learn at a "decent" university is marginal (based more on the student than the college). The true value of ivy league schools is that they are full of rich kids. Rich kids have rich parents who frequently hold positions of power. Befriend a rich kid and their parents and your likelihood of landing an extremely high paying position after college increases dramatically. I would go so far as to argue that most executive positions are only available to such people and that without those connections you will likely NEVER be able to land such a position.

      Anyway, to sum it up, college's true value isn't just education; it also has social value. A younger individual may be ready for a college education, but such a person will be at an extreme disadvantage socially. In turn this puts them at a disadvantage for life rather than giving them a "head start." If giving someone a "head start" is the real concern, then you might as well drop out of high school at 16, get a GED, and get a job. You'll be working at 16 instead of "losing years" in high school and college. Landing a good job isn't just about your education, it's about your connections.

  2. Re:Why go to community college? by cptdondo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Depends on the community college. There are some that are academically rigorous and serve as the first 2 years of a 4 year college curriculum at a much lower cost. And there are 4 year colleges that are diploma mills.

    Don't get caught up in the label.

  3. Re:Why go to community college? by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Community colleges are filled with people who choose to be there. This is an entirely different environment from American high schools, where attendance is compulsory, backed by the full force of truancy laws.

    Trying to get everyone a good basic education has its merits, but in some other countries you choose at 16 whether you want to go to college or receive vocational training or leave school altogether. This seems to work out well for everyone.

    And as someone who absolutely despised high school, I know I would have done much better mentally and academically, even at the worst community colleges. I doubt any university would have penalized me for attending college courses (even if poor by their standards) before I hit 18.