The State Board of Education defines what is required for high school graduation, with input from the State Legislature. Generally speaking, this amounts to a year of kindergarten, plus twelve years, with requirements of a number of hours passed in specified courses.
What if we thought about it differently, and assessed mastery of subject matter rather than the completion of hours and years? What if grade (or coursework) progression were based on subject mastery, rather than age?
Might more students graduate? Might some learn much more, given the incentive of making progress rather than serving time?
Metro Nashville Public Schools’ Board Member Kay Brooks had a thought-provoking post in December that prompted this train of thought:
Attendance does not equal education. As I’ve said many times before–these pre-K children have time yet but there are thousands of near adults leaving the system frustrated and lacking basic skills every year and for too many that directly leads to criminal behavior that endangers us all. THAT’s where the focus needs to be. We can’t just consider them lost causes and turn our backs on them in favor of toddlers. The mantra ‘for the children’ usually conjures up images of those cuddly small ones but those high school drop outs are still children too.
I disagree with Kay on the Pre-K issue; I think Pre-K is the answer to closing the achievement gap that shows up most starkly in later grades. But the question of how to address the “near adults leaving the system frustrated” spurred what follows.
What if we allowed students to “test out” of certain courses, as is commonplace in colleges and universities, and allowed them to progress more quickly — whether to graduation, or to higher coursework? What if we allowed students the option of passing the GED test (perhaps along with the required Algebra, Biology, English, and History Gateway exams) and graduating early?
The hard, cold reality is that the traditional school environment is not enjoyable — and doesn’t work well for — all kids. Not all who fail to meet the NCLB graduation rate standard (graduating precisely four years from enrollment in high school) are in any way intellectually inferior. In fact, some are very advanced in their subject mastery, but simply resist going through the motions out of boredom, personality conflicts, or other non-curricular issues.
Another harsh reality is that half of the population, by definition, has a below-average IQ. This does not mean that these people are of no value to society; it means that not everyone is destined for the same outcome. From the WSJ’s follow-up piece:
A reality about the job market must eventually begin to affect the valuation of a college education: The spread of wealth at the top of American society has created an explosive increase in the demand for craftsmen. Finding a good lawyer or physician is easy. Finding a good carpenter, painter, electrician, plumber, glazier, mason–the list goes on and on–is difficult, and it is a seller’s market. Journeymen craftsmen routinely make incomes in the top half of the income distribution while master craftsmen can make six figures. They have work even in a soft economy. Their jobs cannot be outsourced to India. And the craftsman’s job provides wonderful intrinsic rewards that come from mastery of a challenging skill that produces tangible results. How many white-collar jobs provide nearly as much satisfaction?
Although there might be some slight cost savings to high schools in not having to run every child through a requisite number of hours, the real gain would be in allowing those ready to move on, to move on sooner (whether beyond high school, or simply to more advanced coursework) and maintain their interests. It would also allow those who can’t go much further, to move on to a more productive phase.
In no way do I suggest moving any student out of high school early without their, and their parents’, express desire to do so. But, might we better serve many students by basing progression upon achievement rather than age and seat time?
